|
Post by vacant on Aug 1, 2015 6:11:16 GMT -5
Welcome back Vacant. What have you been doing lately? Still seeking, or have you lost interest? Thank you ZD Well I've been working, living, mostly doing what you once or twice recommended (or at least my interpretation of it) which is just to deal with what life calls for dealing with in this moment, without worrying too much about the next moment or the previous one — I don't have to have a planned destination or a journey map. Still seeking or lost interest? I might have lost some of my interest in the ST discussion board but I certainly haven't lost an inch of interest in the you-know-what that's hard to say, for today I could call it the beloved! And seeking, not really or at least not obviously. The understanding that there is absolutely nothing to seek is getting deeper all the time. No woo-woo realisations here for sure, no fab liberation, but an unchallenged closeness to "this is it", always as it appears to present itself in total. What to seek when it doesn't quit to be this, exactly wholesale? And who to seek for it? Perhaps a good chunk of spiritual angst has been lost, which is fine! And you have been well?
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Aug 1, 2015 6:13:36 GMT -5
Yes, just what I meant, Source, that is unknown to me. An easy answer would be "yes of course, it's Eye thinking and typing" but that is not satisfactory. Rather than tediously repeating myself because I have posted on that subject before, can I refer you to these rants and blabs all within the same thread at a few pages of each other, if you are at all interested: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/237685/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/237726/threadspiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/237730/threadhmmm, never done these kind of links to posts before, and the way they look in preview does not convince me they will work. Anyway, note that I am not proclaiming truths, merely that some widely assumed notions do not work for yours truly. I just don't know, and that's rather easy to live with. But as in my apology to Jay17, I'd better not conclude that others know as little as I do. You are confusing knowing with conceptual knowing or knowledge. You know you are seeing but you may not intellectually know the you that is seeing or the what is seen. You know you have a pain in your back, you may not intellectually know the you that feels that pain or what pain is but you still know it. When you ask if I know who is thinking and typing, I say that thoughts appear and typing happens, the who part is unknown. But no biggy, it's okay if you want to call it a question of semantics.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 1, 2015 8:47:45 GMT -5
You are confusing knowing with conceptual knowing or knowledge. You know you are seeing but you may not intellectually know the you that is seeing or the what is seen. You know you have a pain in your back, you may not intellectually know the you that feels that pain or what pain is but you still know it. When you ask if I know who is thinking and typing, I say that thoughts appear and typing happens, the who part is unknown. But no biggy, it's okay if you want to call it a question of semantics. Do you realize the difference between thoughts appearing from your unique perspective/understanding compared with the perspectives of those that understand their perceptions differently?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 9:17:29 GMT -5
Welcome back Vacant. What have you been doing lately? Still seeking, or have you lost interest? Thank you ZD Well I've been working, living, mostly doing what you once or twice recommended (or at least my interpretation of it) which is just to deal with what life calls for dealing with in this moment, without worrying too much about the next moment or the previous one — I don't have to have a planned destination or a journey map. Still seeking or lost interest? I might have lost some of my interest in the ST discussion board but I certainly haven't lost an inch of interest in the you-know-what that's hard to say, for today I could call it the beloved! And seeking, not really or at least not obviously. The understanding that there is absolutely nothing to seek is getting deeper all the time. No woo-woo realisations here for sure, no fab liberation, but an unchallenged closeness to "this is it", always as it appears to present itself in total. What to seek when it doesn't quit to be this, exactly wholesale? And who to seek for it? Perhaps a good chunk of spiritual angst has been lost, which is fine! And you have been well? Better luck next time!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 1, 2015 9:54:10 GMT -5
Welcome back Vacant. What have you been doing lately? Still seeking, or have you lost interest? Thank you ZD Well I've been working, living, mostly doing what you once or twice recommended (or at least my interpretation of it) which is just to deal with what life calls for dealing with in this moment, without worrying too much about the next moment or the previous one — I don't have to have a planned destination or a journey map. Still seeking or lost interest? I might have lost some of my interest in the ST discussion board but I certainly haven't lost an inch of interest in the you-know-what that's hard to say, for today I could call it the beloved! And seeking, not really or at least not obviously. The understanding that there is absolutely nothing to seek is getting deeper all the time. No woo-woo realisations here for sure, no fab liberation, but an unchallenged closeness to "this is it", always as it appears to present itself in total. What to seek when it doesn't quit to be this, exactly wholesale? And who to seek for it? Perhaps a good chunk of spiritual angst has been lost, which is fine! And you have been well? It sounds to me like you're doing just fine. This week I was reading a personal adventure book about acrobatic airplane flying, "No Visible Horizon," and the author, Joshua Ramo, was discussing the mystery of why some people are extreme risk takers. He states that there was no credible explanation for this kind of activity until 1974 when Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi wrote his seminal research work on "flow." He writes that C. had his study subjects wear pagers, and he would buzz them in the middle of the day, randomly, and ask them to sit down and rate how happy they were at that moment and also explain what they were doing. C. found an exact correlation between happiness and what he called "flow," a state of complete absorption. C.'s idea was that people derived joy from how they related to the environment around them, not from some pre-established set of mental contraints, and he explained what that meant. He found that some people were happiest when confronting extreme risk. Physical danger provided a kind of "centering of attention." The more they were required to concentrate to stay alive, the happier they were. He writes, "But in that flow state, there was heaven. No sense of self. A loss of perception of time. Total freedom from worry and complete immersion in the moment." This is what the pathless path we discuss on this forum is all about--learning how to stay totally absorbed in the moment and free from compulsive intellectual reflection. People who enjoy extreme risk activities, such a mountain climbing or acrobatic flying, enter a state of flow because of the nature of those activities, but they often don't know how to stay in a state of flow during times when they are NOT engaged in those kinds of activities. The value of ATA-T, and other meditative activities, is that they get us out of our heads and into our bodies (where we interact with the world directly), and this is the primary value of all such practices. Anyone who stays focused upon what is happening in the moment, non-reflectively, is more likely to become absorbed by whatever is happening. To become totally absorbed in the flow of life is the gateway to freedom and peace of mind.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 1, 2015 10:07:02 GMT -5
Thank you ZD Well I've been working, living, mostly doing what you once or twice recommended (or at least my interpretation of it) which is just to deal with what life calls for dealing with in this moment, without worrying too much about the next moment or the previous one — I don't have to have a planned destination or a journey map. Still seeking or lost interest? I might have lost some of my interest in the ST discussion board but I certainly haven't lost an inch of interest in the you-know-what that's hard to say, for today I could call it the beloved! And seeking, not really or at least not obviously. The understanding that there is absolutely nothing to seek is getting deeper all the time. No woo-woo realisations here for sure, no fab liberation, but an unchallenged closeness to "this is it", always as it appears to present itself in total. What to seek when it doesn't quit to be this, exactly wholesale? And who to seek for it? Perhaps a good chunk of spiritual angst has been lost, which is fine! And you have been well? It sounds to me like you're doing just fine. This week I was reading a personal adventure book about acrobatic airplane flying, "No Visible Horizon," and the author, Joshua Ramo, was discussing the mystery of why some people are extreme risk takers. He states that there was no credible explanation for this kind of activity until 1974 when Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi wrote his seminal research work on "flow." He writes that C. had his study subjects wear pagers, and he would buzz them in the middle of the day, randomly, and ask them to sit down and rate how happy they were at that moment and also explain what they were doing. C. found an exact correlation between happiness and what he called "flow," a state of complete absorption.
C.'s idea was that people derived joy from how they related to the environment around them, not from some pre-established set of mental contraints, and he explained what that meant. He found that some people were happiest when confronting extreme risk. Physical danger provided a kind of "centering of attention." The more they were required to concentrate to stay alive, the happier they were. He writes, "But in that flow state, there was heaven. No sense of self. A loss of perception of time. Total freedom from worry and complete immersion in the moment." This is what the pathless path we discuss on this forum is all about-- learning how to stay totally absorbed in the moment and free from compulsive intellectual reflection. People who enjoy extreme risk activities, such a mountain climbing or acrobatic flying, enter a state of flow because of the nature of those activities, but they often don't know how to stay in a state of flow during times when they are NOT engaged in those kinds of activities. The value of ATA-T, and other meditative activities, is that they get us out of our heads and into our bodies (where we interact with the world directly), and this is the primary value of all such practices. Anyone who stays focused upon what is happening in the moment, non-reflectively, is more likely to become absorbed by whatever is happening. To become totally absorbed in the flow of life is the gateway to freedom and peace of mind. Hi ZD: I've tried to arrange your post to reveal the message that resonates with my understanding, the more visible text very closely approximates my own understanding..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 1, 2015 10:13:16 GMT -5
It sounds to me like you're doing just fine. This week I was reading a personal adventure book about acrobatic airplane flying, "No Visible Horizon," and the author, Joshua Ramo, was discussing the mystery of why some people are extreme risk takers. He states that there was no credible explanation for this kind of activity until 1974 when Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi wrote his seminal research work on "flow." He writes that C. had his study subjects wear pagers, and he would buzz them in the middle of the day, randomly, and ask them to sit down and rate how happy they were at that moment and also explain what they were doing. C. found an exact correlation between happiness and what he called "flow," a state of complete absorption.
C.'s idea was that people derived joy from how they related to the environment around them, not from some pre-established set of mental contraints, and he explained what that meant. He found that some people were happiest when confronting extreme risk. Physical danger provided a kind of "centering of attention." The more they were required to concentrate to stay alive, the happier they were. He writes, "But in that flow state, there was heaven. No sense of self. A loss of perception of time. Total freedom from worry and complete immersion in the moment." This is what the pathless path we discuss on this forum is all about-- learning how to stay totally absorbed in the moment and free from compulsive intellectual reflection. People who enjoy extreme risk activities, such a mountain climbing or acrobatic flying, enter a state of flow because of the nature of those activities, but they often don't know how to stay in a state of flow during times when they are NOT engaged in those kinds of activities. The value of ATA-T, and other meditative activities, is that they get us out of our heads and into our bodies (where we interact with the world directly), and this is the primary value of all such practices. Anyone who stays focused upon what is happening in the moment, non-reflectively, is more likely to become absorbed by whatever is happening. To become totally absorbed in the flow of life is the gateway to freedom and peace of mind. Hi ZD: I've tried to arrange your post to reveal the message that resonates with my understanding, the more visible text very closely approximates my own understanding.. That reconfiguration of the words looks good to me. I'd say that we're in total agreement about this.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 1, 2015 10:33:17 GMT -5
Hi ZD: I've tried to arrange your post to reveal the message that resonates with my understanding, the more visible text very closely approximates my own understanding.. That reconfiguration of the words looks good to me. I'd say that we're in total agreement about this. Our understandings often align..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 11:09:19 GMT -5
You are confusing knowing with conceptual knowing or knowledge. You know you are seeing but you may not intellectually know the you that is seeing or the what is seen. You know you have a pain in your back, you may not intellectually know the you that feels that pain or what pain is but you still know it. When you ask if I know who is thinking and typing, I say that thoughts appear and typing happens, the who part is unknown. But no biggy, it's okay if you want to call it a question of semantics. Yes, you are aware or know thoughts and are aware and know that the body is typing. As you rightly say where the thoughts come from is unknown. And the source of the movement of the body whether it is egoic, conditioned, or cosmic is also unknown. It's not just semantics because even an illiterate person knows thoughts and actions by the mind/body have an unknown source.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2015 11:25:52 GMT -5
(** puffs out chest and glares at vacant **) Hehe! Way to go
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Aug 2, 2015 3:14:57 GMT -5
When you ask if I know who is thinking and typing, I say that thoughts appear and typing happens, the who part is unknown. But no biggy, it's okay if you want to call it a question of semantics. Do you realize the difference between thoughts appearing from your unique perspective/understanding compared with the perspectives of those that understand their perceptions differently? I read your post a good while ago and still cannot figure where you're pitching at. If you mean that I should make more generous room for Source's perspective then I agree and yes, I realised that at my last reply to him/her and offered the semantics thing as a conciliating buffer. If you are asking me to compare what appears here, to what might or might not appear in an imaginary elsewhere... well no, I do not realise.
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Aug 2, 2015 3:17:37 GMT -5
Thank you ZD Well I've been working, living, mostly doing what you once or twice recommended (or at least my interpretation of it) which is just to deal with what life calls for dealing with in this moment, without worrying too much about the next moment or the previous one — I don't have to have a planned destination or a journey map. Still seeking or lost interest? I might have lost some of my interest in the ST discussion board but I certainly haven't lost an inch of interest in the you-know-what that's hard to say, for today I could call it the beloved! And seeking, not really or at least not obviously. The understanding that there is absolutely nothing to seek is getting deeper all the time. No woo-woo realisations here for sure, no fab liberation, but an unchallenged closeness to "this is it", always as it appears to present itself in total. What to seek when it doesn't quit to be this, exactly wholesale? And who to seek for it? Perhaps a good chunk of spiritual angst has been lost, which is fine! And you have been well? Better luck next time! Haha. We'll see about that!
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Aug 2, 2015 3:21:07 GMT -5
Self depreciation would be one thing, the honest recognition of ignorance another. I did not know I had a problem there, so thank you for pointing it out. I actually did not point anything out to you. I said,"..it seems to me...", which means i simply have expressed my interpretation of events, what i saw with my mind\soul\intellect\awareness\consciousness\being. When i expressed what i saw, i did not know if that which i saw was real or not. All i did was tell you what i was seeing, my theoretical conclusion derived from processing the information you shared about yourself and the thoughts you have. If you examined and processed what i have said and conclude you have a problem there, then that judgement is by your effort. I see what you mean. It's always good to clarify things
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 2, 2015 7:31:43 GMT -5
Do you realize the difference between thoughts appearing from your unique perspective/understanding compared with the perspectives of those that understand their perceptions differently? I read your post a good while ago and still cannot figure where you're pitching at. If you mean that I should make more generous room for Source's perspective then I agree and yes, I realised that at my last reply to him/her and offered the semantics thing as a conciliating buffer. If you are asking me to compare what appears here, to what might or might not appear in an imaginary elsewhere... well no, I do not realise. Is it an imaginary elsewhere when you are talking face to face with someone who disagrees with your understanding of what is happening? Have you considered not setting an expectation that 'elsewhere' is imaginary, that there's simply Life happening, and.. that through your unique included participation in that happening you exemplify the one/many simultaneous existence?
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Aug 3, 2015 12:07:42 GMT -5
I read your post a good while ago and still cannot figure where you're pitching at. If you mean that I should make more generous room for Source's perspective then I agree and yes, I realised that at my last reply to him/her and offered the semantics thing as a conciliating buffer. If you are asking me to compare what appears here, to what might or might not appear in an imaginary elsewhere... well no, I do not realise. Is it an imaginary elsewhere when you are talking face to face with someone who disagrees with your understanding of what is happening? Have you considered not setting an expectation that 'elsewhere' is imaginary, that there's simply Life happening, and.. that through your unique included participation in that happening you exemplify the one/many simultaneous existence? When someone speaks to me about their views or experiences, face to face or not, what appears is someone speaking to me about their views and experiences. Not what appears elsewhere. The imaginary of elsewhere is not set as an expectation, quite the contrary. Yes there is simply Life happening and where I sit, it comes without elsewhere, without other, and without headache inducing "one/many simultaneous existence". We can talk about elsewhere, other and one/many stuff only as fanciful objects because they are nowhere to be found in This. Disclaimer: I am responding to be polite and to manifest a smidgin of socially acceptable protocol, but I do not know that the blabber that comes out of my mouth or my computer keys is true or reflects any truth whatsoever. My barging into this thread was about not knowing.
|
|