Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 1:02:22 GMT -5
Can you rephrase the bolder line question thereby I could understand? A person who thinks themselves to be meditating can do it for one of any number of reasons. It seems common that people become interested as a means to de-stress. Other's might come to value the ability to perform in high-pressure situations where other people are making unreasonable demands. Meditation can have benefits to a person their entire lives without them realizing that it wasn't them that was doing it all along ... that there never was any effort involved after all. btw: writing code can be a really deep positive samadhi. oh yeah. But you said you would come to know you are not a person through meditation, isn't it? So it automatically assumes that whoever comes to meditate surely assumes themselves as persons.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 28, 2015 6:44:34 GMT -5
I wouldn't say ATA-T is a problem unless thought makes it into a problem. So we could say the problem with ATA-T is ATA+T What problems are you aware of gopal? When mind suggest you to do something, it absolutely knows where to break it, so if you use the way Tolle suggest you to do, then at one point of time mind exactly knows how to pull you back to normal state and then back to ATA-T. If you do in the way zendancer suggest you to do to realize the seer, then the peace which has been created at the time of ATA-T can't stand without it's opposite, so irritation would be other side of this peace, peace/irritation roller coaster would be started. gopal, I assume this is the problem you see with ATA-T you referred to a couple of posts back? However, this is incorrect. ATA-T doesn't really have an opposite. ATA+T is not the opposite of ATA-T. ATA-T is a *place* beyond opposites. The very importance of ATA-T is that it takes you out of the opposites. So it's incorrect to say that ATA-T can't stand without its opposite (irritation). ATA-T doesn't start a roller coaster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 6:46:38 GMT -5
When mind suggest you to do something, it absolutely knows where to break it, so if you use the way Tolle suggest you to do, then at one point of time mind exactly knows how to pull you back to normal state and then back to ATA-T. If you do in the way zendancer suggest you to do to realize the seer, then the peace which has been created at the time of ATA-T can't stand without it's opposite, so irritation would be other side of this peace, peace/irritation roller coaster would be started. gopal, I assume this is the problem you see with ATA-T you referred to a couple of posts back? However, this is incorrect. ATA-T doesn't really have an opposite. ATA+T is not the opposite of ATA-T. ATA-T is a *place* beyond opposites. The very importance of ATA-T is that it takes you out of the opposites. So it's incorrect to say that ATA-T can't stand without its opposite (irritation). ATA-T doesn't start a roller coaster. ATA-T is not a problem that's just an action, but the peace which has been created by ATA-T can't stand without it's opposite. ATA-T is also one of the mind created fun, Consciousness clearly knows where to break this state.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 28, 2015 7:21:29 GMT -5
Not intending to answer for Gopal, but feeling like there's value in this question.. the problem i experience is the willingness to let an obscure acronym refer to an ill-defined process, rather than openly explore that process, treating the acronym as if people share the same understanding of it.. ATA-T is what other people might call "looking with a still mind" or "looking without engaging mind," or "looking without conceptual knowing," or "looking in silence," or "being still and aware." As I've noted before, mindfulness is the (primarily Vipassana) practice of looking at everything, including thoughts. Mindfulness is sort of standing back and being an observer of everything. ATA-T is looking at everything OTHER THAN thoughts. Rather than standing back, metaphorically, and being an observer, when pursuing ATA-T, all separation disappears, and the observer eventually ceases to be part of the process. If pursued diligently, ATA-T leads to sustained silent awareness and an absence of self-referentialty. Yes. I found many years ago that if you (try to) ATA thoughts ( I would have said merely, attend thoughts, or actually, voluntarily attend thoughts), you can't, the mind stops thinking. So if you are attending thoughts, then you are not really in the kind of attention ZD is talking about. I had to move some books around last night to get a fan where I wanted it, Ask The Awakened ended up in my hands. Wei Wu Wei is discussing the different meanings of the word meditation, and what the first six Patriarchs beginning with Bodhidharma, were recommending, first quoting St. John of the Cross: 'he says, meditation, which is discursive mental activity by means of images, forms and figures that are produced imaginatively', and he goes on to say that it is the first thing to be gotten rid of. The great (Ch'an) Masters said exactly the same, in fact that may be said to have been the focal-point of their teaching, .........we are faced with practically nothing but that as the 'method' to 'attaining' enlightenment. Of course anyone can take any word and declare that he uses it to mean the opposite, but really that does not seem to be a very good idea, nor one that is calculated to help the struggling pilgrim? The real meaning of Dhyana is well-enough known, though no single word covers it in our languages; of these 'awareness' is the nearness, implying a vivid state of consciousness free of all 'abiding' or mentation of any kind'. (unquote, emphasis sdp) pages xviii, xix. This is essentially ATA-T.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 28, 2015 7:25:40 GMT -5
gopal, I assume this is the problem you see with ATA-T you referred to a couple of posts back? However, this is incorrect. ATA-T doesn't really have an opposite. ATA+T is not the opposite of ATA-T. ATA-T is a *place* beyond opposites. The very importance of ATA-T is that it takes you out of the opposites. So it's incorrect to say that ATA-T can't stand without its opposite (irritation). ATA-T doesn't start a roller coaster. ATA-T is not a problem that's just an action, but the peace which has been created by ATA-T can't stand without it's opposite. ATA-T is also one of the mind created fun, Consciousness clearly knows where to break this state. Could you explain more what you mean by the bold? :-) (Also, what I just posted might clarify more what ATA-T is).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 28, 2015 7:30:13 GMT -5
A person who thinks themselves to be meditating can do it for one of any number of reasons. It seems common that people become interested as a means to de-stress. Other's might come to value the ability to perform in high-pressure situations where other people are making unreasonable demands. Meditation can have benefits to a person their entire lives without them realizing that it wasn't them that was doing it all along ... that there never was any effort involved after all. btw: writing code can be a really deep positive samadhi. oh yeah. But you said you would come to know you are not a person through meditation, isn't it? So it automatically assumes that whoever comes to meditate surely assumes themselves as persons. Correct, people who start meditating imagine that they are volitional persons who are meditating for some reason--to reduce stress, improve health, find answers to existential questions, function more optimally, attain enlightenment, etc. As the intellect becomes silent, and attention focuses upon isness rather than thoughts, any of these things can happen. Scientists know that meditation triggers what is called "the relaxation response," so the practice relaxes the body, lowers blood pressure, changes galvanic skin response, and has many other beneficial somatic effects. This is well known and well documented. What is only now being discovered by scientists is that meditation changes the brain and its operation in other less-obvious ways. The brain has plasticity, and how it is used affects it structurally. As people meditate, certain parts of the brain grow larger and other parts smaller, and neural pathways are also altered. Many of us suspect that silent attentiveness, alone, is capable of collapsing thought structures--even thought structures that we are unaware of. Inquiry and existential questioning seems to play a role in these collapses, but internal silence, alone, may be sufficient. The bottom line? People begin meditating under the assumption that they are volitional persons, and sometimes the thought structure that supports that sense of personal doership can collapse and reveal that the only do-er is the Infinite and that no separate person ever existed. Some people who attain SR state their understanding as, "All there is is consciousness," and "What I am is consciousness." Some people who attain SR state their understanding as, "There is only the Infinite," and "I am THAT." Both groups of people are pointing to the same thing. The latter group of people use the word "THAT" to include both the physical world and the non-physical world, but they don't put any particular emphasis upon either physicality or non-physicality. Both groups of people see and interact with a reality that is fundamentally undivided by the intellect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 7:37:05 GMT -5
But you said you would come to know you are not a person through meditation, isn't it? So it automatically assumes that whoever comes to meditate surely assumes themselves as persons. Correct, people who start meditating imagine that they are volitional persons who are meditating for some reason--to reduce stress, improve health, find answers to existential questions, function more optimally, attain enlightenment, etc. As the intellect becomes silent, and attention focuses upon isness rather than thoughts, any of these things can happen. Scientists know that meditation triggers what is called "the relaxation response," so the practice relaxes the body, lowers blood pressure, changes galvanic skin response, and has many other beneficial somatic effects. This is well known and well documented. What is only now being discovered by scientists is that meditation changes the brain and its operation in other less-obvious ways. The brain has plasticity, and how it is used affects it structurally. As people meditate, certain parts of the brain grow larger and other parts smaller, and neural pathways are also altered. Many of us suspect that silent attentiveness, alone, is capable of collapsing thought structures--even thought structures that we are unaware of. Inquiry and existential questioning seems to play a role in these collapses, but internal silence, alone, may be sufficient. The bottom line? People begin meditating under the assumption that they are volitional persons, and sometimes the thought structure that supports that sense of personal doership can collapse and reveal that the only do-er is the Infinite and that no separate person ever existed. Some people who attain SR state their understanding as, "All there is is consciousness," and "What I am is consciousness." Some people who attain SR state their understanding as, "There is only the Infinite," and "I am THAT." Both groups of people are pointing to the same thing. The latter group of people use the word "THAT" to include both the physical world and the non-physical world, but they don't put any particular emphasis upon either physicality or non-physicality. Both groups of people see and interact with a reality that is fundamentally undivided by the intellect. Actually I got your core point very clearly, you mean to say here to everyone that this person who named 'Gopal' or 'Laughter' is not the doer, but we are all moved by a single doer, we are not acting separately. This is what you mean to say clearly, I understood you and I have the huge agreement with you here. But the part where you seem to talk about the doer and perceiver are the one is what confuses me, because I simply experiences the thought rather than creating the one, So it's clear that I am not the creator but perceiver, but you say they both are one, How come? Isn't it clear that none of your thoughts are not created by you?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 28, 2015 7:37:31 GMT -5
When mind suggest you to do something, it absolutely knows where to break it, so if you use the way Tolle suggest you to do, then at one point of time mind exactly knows how to pull you back to normal state and then back to ATA-T. If you do in the way zendancer suggest you to do to realize the seer, then the peace which has been created at the time of ATA-T can't stand without it's opposite, so irritation would be other side of this peace, peace/irritation roller coaster would be started. gopal, I assume this is the problem you see with ATA-T you referred to a couple of posts back? However, this is incorrect. ATA-T doesn't really have an opposite. ATA+T is not the opposite of ATA-T. ATA-T is a *place* beyond opposites. The very importance of ATA-T is that it takes you out of the opposites. So it's incorrect to say that ATA-T can't stand without its opposite (irritation). ATA-T doesn't start a roller coaster. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jun 28, 2015 7:45:54 GMT -5
ATA-T is what other people might call "looking with a still mind" or "looking without engaging mind," or "looking without conceptual knowing," or "looking in silence," or "being still and aware." As I've noted before, mindfulness is the (primarily Vipassana) practice of looking at everything, including thoughts. Mindfulness is sort of standing back and being an observer of everything. ATA-T is looking at everything OTHER THAN thoughts. Rather than standing back, metaphorically, and being an observer, when pursuing ATA-T, all separation disappears, and the observer eventually ceases to be part of the process. If pursued diligently, ATA-T leads to sustained silent awareness and an absence of self-referentialty. Yes. I found many years ago that if you (try to) ATA thoughts ( I would have said merely, attend thoughts, or actually, voluntarily attend thoughts), you can't, the mind stops thinking. So if you are attending thoughts, then you are not really in the kind of attention ZD is talking about. I had to move some books around last night to get a fan where I wanted it, Ask The Awakened ended up in my hands. Wei Wu Wei is discussing the different meanings of the word meditation, and what the first six Patriarchs beginning with Bodhidharma, were recommending, first quoting St. John of the Cross: 'he says, meditation, which is discursive mental activity by means of images, forms and figures that are produced imaginatively', and he goes on to say that it is the first thing to be gotten rid of. The great (Ch'an) Masters said exactly the same, in fact that may be said to have been the focal-point of their teaching, .........we are faced with practically nothing but that as the 'method' to 'attaining' enlightenment. Of course anyone can take any word and declare that he uses it to mean the opposite, but really that does not seem to be a very good idea, nor one that is calculated to help the struggling pilgrim? The real meaning of Dhyana is well-enough known, though no single word covers it in our languages; of these 'awareness' is the nearness, implying a vivid state of consciousness free of all 'abiding' or mentation of any kind'. (unquote, emphasis sdp) pages xviii, xix. This is essentially ATA-T. No la-la land wandering?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 28, 2015 7:49:09 GMT -5
Correct, people who start meditating imagine that they are volitional persons who are meditating for some reason--to reduce stress, improve health, find answers to existential questions, function more optimally, attain enlightenment, etc. As the intellect becomes silent, and attention focuses upon isness rather than thoughts, any of these things can happen. Scientists know that meditation triggers what is called "the relaxation response," so the practice relaxes the body, lowers blood pressure, changes galvanic skin response, and has many other beneficial somatic effects. This is well known and well documented. What is only now being discovered by scientists is that meditation changes the brain and its operation in other less-obvious ways. The brain has plasticity, and how it is used affects it structurally. As people meditate, certain parts of the brain grow larger and other parts smaller, and neural pathways are also altered. Many of us suspect that silent attentiveness, alone, is capable of collapsing thought structures--even thought structures that we are unaware of. Inquiry and existential questioning seems to play a role in these collapses, but internal silence, alone, may be sufficient. The bottom line? People begin meditating under the assumption that they are volitional persons, and sometimes the thought structure that supports that sense of personal doership can collapse and reveal that the only do-er is the Infinite and that no separate person ever existed. Some people who attain SR state their understanding as, "All there is is consciousness," and "What I am is consciousness." Some people who attain SR state their understanding as, "There is only the Infinite," and "I am THAT." Both groups of people are pointing to the same thing. The latter group of people use the word "THAT" to include both the physical world and the non-physical world, but they don't put any particular emphasis upon either physicality or non-physicality. Both groups of people see and interact with a reality that is fundamentally undivided by the intellect. Actually I got your core point very clearly, you mean to say here to everyone that this person who named 'Gopal' or 'Laughter' is not the doer, but we are all moved by a single doer, we are not acting separately. This is what you mean to say clearly, I understood you and I have the huge agreement with you here. But the part where you seem to talk about the doer and perceiver are one is what confuses me, because I am simply experiences the thought rather than creating the one, So it's clear that I am not the creator but perceiver, but you say they both are one, How come? Isn't it clear that none of your thoughts are not created by you? Good question, but if "you" realize that "you" are YOU, this issue instantly dissolves. The REAL YOU is the do-er of everything; IT is the thinker, the thought, the perceiver of thought, etc. Thoughts appear in what YOU ARE because what YOU ARE is the entire process we call "reality." Reality is intelligent, creative, unified, and infinite. IT does whatever IT does, and you are THAT. It grows body/minds, and It thinks about Itself, but It can't know Itself through thinking. It can know what It is not, and it can realize what It IS by the disappearance of what It is not.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 28, 2015 7:53:32 GMT -5
Yes. I found many years ago that if you (try to) ATA thoughts ( I would have said merely, attend thoughts, or actually, voluntarily attend thoughts), you can't, the mind stops thinking. So if you are attending thoughts, then you are not really in the kind of attention ZD is talking about. I had to move some books around last night to get a fan where I wanted it, Ask The Awakened ended up in my hands. Wei Wu Wei is discussing the different meanings of the word meditation, and what the first six Patriarchs beginning with Bodhidharma, were recommending, first quoting St. John of the Cross: 'he says, meditation, which is discursive mental activity by means of images, forms and figures that are produced imaginatively', and he goes on to say that it is the first thing to be gotten rid of. The great (Ch'an) Masters said exactly the same, in fact that may be said to have been the focal-point of their teaching, .........we are faced with practically nothing but that as the 'method' to 'attaining' enlightenment. Of course anyone can take any word and declare that he uses it to mean the opposite, but really that does not seem to be a very good idea, nor one that is calculated to help the struggling pilgrim? The real meaning of Dhyana is well-enough known, though no single word covers it in our languages; of these 'awareness' is the nearness, implying a vivid state of consciousness free of all 'abiding' or mentation of any kind'. (unquote, emphasis sdp) pages xviii, xix. This is essentially ATA-T. No la-la land wandering? ha ha! As Leonard Jacobsen says (paraphrasing), "When you visit la-la land, don't stay too long. You might get lost, and be unable to find your way home."
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 28, 2015 7:55:01 GMT -5
gopal, I assume this is the problem you see with ATA-T you referred to a couple of posts back? However, this is incorrect. ATA-T doesn't really have an opposite. ATA+T is not the opposite of ATA-T. ATA-T is a *place* beyond opposites. The very importance of ATA-T is that it takes you out of the opposites. So it's incorrect to say that ATA-T can't stand without its opposite (irritation). ATA-T doesn't start a roller coaster. ATA-T is not a problem that's just an action, but the peace which has been created by ATA-T can't stand without it's opposite. ATA-T is also one of the mind created fun, Consciousness clearly knows where to break this state. Coming from quite a few years of Vipassana practice (which could be called ATA+T), I think there's a time for each. What ATA+T can do is change our relationship with thought. Jumping into ATA-T without truly seeing that relationship could result in the roller coaster you're talking about. Depends on the mindscape of the practicer, though. ATA-T (the way I understand it - ZD can correct me if I'm wrong) is the same as resting in awareness except with the eyes open and body moving. As that 'resting place' is actually the unencumbered truth of this moment, it's a coming home. There's an alignment going on that takes on a 'life' of its own and starts to permeate the roller coaster.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jun 28, 2015 7:55:46 GMT -5
No la-la land wandering? ha ha! As Leonard Jacobsen says (paraphrasing), "When you visit la-la land, don't stay too long. You might get lost, and be unable to find your way home."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 28, 2015 7:56:25 GMT -5
Yes. I found many years ago that if you (try to) ATA thoughts ( I would have said merely, attend thoughts, or actually, voluntarily attend thoughts), you can't, the mind stops thinking. So if you are attending thoughts, then you are not really in the kind of attention ZD is talking about. I had to move some books around last night to get a fan where I wanted it, Ask The Awakened ended up in my hands. Wei Wu Wei is discussing the different meanings of the word meditation, and what the first six Patriarchs beginning with Bodhidharma, were recommending, first quoting St. John of the Cross: 'he says, meditation, which is discursive mental activity by means of images, forms and figures that are produced imaginatively', and he goes on to say that it is the first thing to be gotten rid of. The great (Ch'an) Masters said exactly the same, in fact that may be said to have been the focal-point of their teaching, .........we are faced with practically nothing but that as the 'method' to 'attaining' enlightenment. Of course anyone can take any word and declare that he uses it to mean the opposite, but really that does not seem to be a very good idea, nor one that is calculated to help the struggling pilgrim? The real meaning of Dhyana is well-enough known, though no single word covers it in our languages; of these 'awareness' is the nearness, implying a vivid state of consciousness free of all 'abiding' or mentation of any kind'. (unquote, emphasis sdp) pages xviii, xix. This is essentially ATA-T. No la-la land wandering? No, if you go to La-La land, no longer in ATA-T :-) .........(although, there is a subtle exception, but best not go there, best not discuss that......).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 7:57:53 GMT -5
But you said you would come to know you are not a person through meditation, isn't it? So it automatically assumes that whoever comes to meditate surely assumes themselves as persons. Correct, people who start meditating imagine that they are volitional persons who are meditating for some reason--to reduce stress, improve health, find answers to existential questions, function more optimally, attain enlightenment, etc. As the intellect becomes silent, and attention focuses upon isness rather than thoughts, any of these things can happen. Scientists know that meditation triggers what is called "the relaxation response," so the practice relaxes the body, lowers blood pressure, changes galvanic skin response, and has many other beneficial somatic effects. This is well known and well documented. What is only now being discovered by scientists is that meditation changes the brain and its operation in other less-obvious ways. The brain has plasticity, and how it is used affects it structurally. As people meditate, certain parts of the brain grow larger and other parts smaller, and neural pathways are also altered. Many of us suspect that silent attentiveness, alone, is capable of collapsing thought structures--even thought structures that we are unaware of. Inquiry and existential questioning seems to play a role in these collapses, but internal silence, alone, may be sufficient. The bottom line? People begin meditating under the assumption that they are volitional persons, and sometimes the thought structure that supports that sense of personal doership can collapse and reveal that the only do-er is the Infinite and that no separate person ever existed. Some people who attain SR state their understanding as, "All there is is consciousness," and "What I am is consciousness." Some people who attain SR state their understanding as, "There is only the Infinite," and "I am THAT." Both groups of people are pointing to the same thing. The latter group of people use the word "THAT" to include both the physical world and the non-physical world, but they don't put any particular emphasis upon either physicality or non-physicality. Both groups of people see and interact with a reality that is fundamentally undivided by the intellect. It is not necessary to meditate to be Aware, but it is priceless to rest in the Awareness that is apparently a meditator. -@zenshredding
|
|