|
Post by topology on Apr 5, 2013 20:26:09 GMT -5
Actually, what happens eventually is that the one who was imagined to be ATA'ing is seen through, and then it doesn't matter what is happening. Who has seen through it? Who doesn't it matter to anymore?Who realised this?I say it collapsed when an individual mindfully examines and chooses to let it collapse, and a new thought is constructd in it's place. This new thought is,"There is no self, this is not a thought it's it the actual truth of reality."There is now the imagination that there in neither twoness or oneness.There is simply washing dishes, plus a person either washing them, or someone watching dishes being washed. There is simply mowing the lawn, plus a person either mowing the lawn, or someone watching lawn being mowed. There is simply having dinner with friends, and a person that has something called friends or a person watching someone having dinner with people they call friends. There is simply going to work, plus the person doing the work or someone watching a person do work. Separation still exists, there is still a mind/body interacting within the dimension called physical reality. All that has occurred in the person has mentally disassociated from their own actions. "That's not me mowing the lawn, that's lawn being mowed", or "That's not me mowing the lawn, that's lawn being mowed by a mind/body."Who's body? Becomes obvious to who? How is something judged to be obvious? So killing people is a perfect way to live and if you have issues with killing people you're the one who's messed up, not the people who are killing others? If all of life is perfect as it is, then why did the sage tell the enquirer to shutup? What problem does the sage have with inquiries other than the obvious they don't like their beliefs, their imagined reality, their illusory world challenged? If life is perfect as it is, then if you get a flat tire, you would not rectify the situation.
Perfect: - conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type. - excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement. - exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose. - entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings. - accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.
And who is a sage in this theoretical realm where no one exists?Who is existing in time? Seen though by who? Who's imagination?Who's imagination? Who is a sage who is less associated to imagination? Who are these people who are more associated with imagination?Who is a sage, and why is there the separation of a sage and truth in the theoretical realm of no separation? This sage who is is content with life however it manifests, acts appropriately, and is no longer jerked around by fantasies and other machinations of mind.. is this the same sage that told the enquirer to shutup?Yet nonduality is a mind created "complex layered abstraction." It is the exact opposite of duality...just another mind created theory created by a person as they try to mindfully reason to make sense of existence.Who observes and reasons that the "imagined controller" has vanished?If there is enjoyment, that is mental activity to judge there is enjoyment. If there is observation, that is mental activity to judge there is observation. If there is no person existing in that situation, there is no observing or feeings, there is no one to sense and express these sensations. Who is this sage in the theoretical realm where no one exists who is listening to another person's enquiry and the sage thinks about what was asked and responds with a smile?EDIT: MG, This is an invitation to play a game: What is Topology trying to say/convey? I want to see if we can communicate on a different level, more through intuition. There are 3 distinct messages or levels of meaning, each one building on the one before it. If you choose not to play, I'll open the game up for anyone to contribute. Spectators are free to PM me if you want to play now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 20:29:46 GMT -5
The fear factor is not something I'm aware of. I understand that maybe it takes a different form and I'm just not seeing it with my cloudy vision. To find fear: is there anything in your experience or about yourself that you are trying to control? Behind that effort to control is a fear. Best place to look might be at your goals and how you would feel if those goals were not met. You are a family man with a wife, any fearful dynamics there which might be dormant? Placating, people pleasing, avoidance behavior? For myself, I've got a very split mind right now. I'm way behind in my research and grading, and I'm perpetually trying to "fix" the situation by telling myself I'm going to do X, but X doesn't get done which popes fuel on the guilt and "I need to fix this" fire, repeat the cycle of creating a self-expectation and failing to make it, and more beating myself up. One of my personality quirks is being very flexible/adaptable. Control is not generally an issue. 'Going with the flow' is probably a good descriptor. It's worked out pretty well. As I've mentioned, I tend not to be a goal-oriented person in the sense of writing down goals and sketching out a plan of action and then implementing. I don't do to-do lists. Stuff gets done, folks seem satisfied with my work and way of relating. So far so good. Ask my wife and she would love to see me sketching out plans of action -- 6:00-7:30 clean basement, laundry, wash windows; 7:30-8:30 feed kids, clean kitchen; 8:30-9:30 laundry, wash windows; 9:30-10 get kids to YMCA; .... She is a todo list lover. The dabbling I've been doing in amping up goal orientation recently has come about because of seeing that it is an area of weakness. I'd like to satisfy my wife more in this area and I don't see it as such a bad thing to develop either -- I figure it can't hurt. I've wondered if it is possible that becoming more goal oriented would also help remind myself to be present and such. I pretty much just ATA when it happens; it's not the result of checking off the task list. But maybe if I wrote it down and checked in on that written goal regularly it would happen more often? All that said, I like your pointer to look for areas that I want to have control of. My wife's impression of me, my colleagues' impression of me, my children. I think Buddha called this 'conceit' in some sanskrity way -- setting some other version of yourself up to be judged against, positively or negatively. This morning I tortured myself about something at work -- I forgot something kind of major that could have had a big impact on how others experienced their day and used their time. I berated myself for quite a while but eventually was able to see how that was part of this conceit thingy. A simple whole-hearted apology and the day went fine and I felt like I made a good contribution to folks' day. On the way home I fretted about not having given my wife a full idea of when I'd be home -- I was not wanting her to get mad at me. Turns out that I beat her home and she was much later than expected so I was able to make dinner for everyone. Lots of energy spent worrying and fretting, mostly totally irrelevant to reality. I'll keep a look out for control stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 20:39:41 GMT -5
The fear factor is not something I'm aware of. I understand that maybe it takes a different form and I'm just not seeing it with my cloudy vision. Yeah, talking about it as fear is not always recognizable for a variety of reasons. Fear can be almost a totally unconscious motivator and it can present itself in all different ways. Additionally, if one's life is going reasonably well, it may actually seem like "I'm doing it and I'm getting what I want" and so that sense of empowerment totally overshadows any recognition of fear. Make no mistake though, the very presence of the personal separate perspective is entirely rooted in fear. Like you, fear was not a conscious presence in my life even though it was driving just about every action that was made. This fear only began to reveal itself for what it was and with tremendous power when I really started giving attention to silence. What were you doing when you were 'giving attention to silence?' Meditation??
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 5, 2013 20:53:11 GMT -5
Who has seen through it? Who doesn't it matter to anymore?Who realised this?I say it collapsed when an individual mindfully examines and chooses to let it collapse, and a new thought is constructd in it's place. This new thought is,"There is no self, this is not a thought it's it the actual truth of reality."There is now the imagination that there in neither twoness or oneness.There is simply washing dishes, plus a person either washing them, or someone watching dishes being washed. There is simply mowing the lawn, plus a person either mowing the lawn, or someone watching lawn being mowed. There is simply having dinner with friends, and a person that has something called friends or a person watching someone having dinner with people they call friends. There is simply going to work, plus the person doing the work or someone watching a person do work. Separation still exists, there is still a mind/body interacting within the dimension called physical reality. All that has occurred in the person has mentally disassociated from their own actions. "That's not me mowing the lawn, that's lawn being mowed", or "That's not me mowing the lawn, that's lawn being mowed by a mind/body."Who's body? Becomes obvious to who? How is something judged to be obvious? So killing people is a perfect way to live and if you have issues with killing people you're the one who's messed up, not the people who are killing others? If all of life is perfect as it is, then why did the sage tell the enquirer to shutup? What problem does the sage have with inquiries other than the obvious they don't like their beliefs, their imagined reality, their illusory world challenged? If life is perfect as it is, then if you get a flat tire, you would not rectify the situation.
Perfect: - conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type. - excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement. - exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose. - entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings. - accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.
And who is a sage in this theoretical realm where no one exists?Who is existing in time? Seen though by who? Who's imagination?Who's imagination? Who is a sage who is less associated to imagination? Who are these people who are more associated with imagination?Who is a sage, and why is there the separation of a sage and truth in the theoretical realm of no separation? This sage who is is content with life however it manifests, acts appropriately, and is no longer jerked around by fantasies and other machinations of mind.. is this the same sage that told the enquirer to shutup?Yet nonduality is a mind created "complex layered abstraction." It is the exact opposite of duality...just another mind created theory created by a person as they try to mindfully reason to make sense of existence.Who observes and reasons that the "imagined controller" has vanished?If there is enjoyment, that is mental activity to judge there is enjoyment. If there is observation, that is mental activity to judge there is observation. If there is no person existing in that situation, there is no observing or feeings, there is no one to sense and express these sensations. Who is this sage in the theoretical realm where no one exists who is listening to another person's enquiry and the sage thinks about what was asked and responds with a smile? EDIT: MG, This is an invitation to play a game: What is Topology trying to say/convey? I want to see if we can communicate on a different level, more through intuition. There are 3 distinct messages or levels of meaning, each one building on the one before it. If you choose not to play, I'll open the game up for anyone to contribute. Spectators are free to PM me if you want to play now. Replying to myself to advertise the game I am proposing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2013 21:41:20 GMT -5
Zacklee. The whole point is to try to notice the game playing, cuz if it's noticed, the game ends and one is face to face with his own willingness or unwillingness. It can go either way, of course, but at least there are no games. Okay. Y'all are invited to keep pointing this out to me, seriously. Perhaps this here ego is disguised in a really sneaky costume right now that I can't see. I like the premise. Of course, from here, it doesn't seem rooted in experience. But I suppose that's why it's such a good disguise. The reason everybody already knows the truth is that it can't be avoided, and the reason for that is that it is what you 'stand' on as you talk about seeking truth. Truth is the 'place' from which you look as you look for truth. Since truth is non-conceptual, it can't be forgotten or misinterpreted or not known, and so really it cannot be hidden or covered over by concepts. People will say that, but it's just a figure of speech. The reason we know it is a game is because we know there is no means by which you can NOT know. In order for you to not know, there would actually have to be a way to hide you from you, but you can never hide from yourself. If there is a mystery, it is not how realization happens, it is how it can fail to happen.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2013 21:51:47 GMT -5
Zacklee. The whole point is to try to notice the game playing, cuz if it's noticed, the game ends and one is face to face with his own willingness or unwillingness. It can go either way, of course, but at least there are no games. Right. And at least at that point it can become about what one IS willing to do and do that. A time saver at the very least. Yes, and actually, I suspect when most are face to face with the truth about their unwillingness, things become more clear, and a genuine willingness may show up. As long as one is playing the seeking game, it can be believed that one may succeed, but if it is seen that there is no willingness to look and to see, then failure is suddenly seen as inevitable, and this may not set well.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 6, 2013 0:46:14 GMT -5
Yeah, talking about it as fear is not always recognizable for a variety of reasons. Fear can be almost a totally unconscious motivator and it can present itself in all different ways. Additionally, if one's life is going reasonably well, it may actually seem like "I'm doing it and I'm getting what I want" and so that sense of empowerment totally overshadows any recognition of fear. Make no mistake though, the very presence of the personal separate perspective is entirely rooted in fear. Like you, fear was not a conscious presence in my life even though it was driving just about every action that was made. This fear only began to reveal itself for what it was and with tremendous power when I really started giving attention to silence. What were you doing when you were 'giving attention to silence?' Meditation?? There wasn't some sort of formal practice, rather just that I became more and more fascinated with what people often coin "that space between thoughts". That interest would assert itself at all different times, including at work or even in the middle of a conversation with someone. There wasn't some sort of concrete line where too much interest in silence was scary but there seemed to be a threshold where "something" would begin to feel threatened. It didn't make much sense at the time but I understand now. It's also that sort of imaginary line where spirituality crossed over from a sort of theoretical "wow, this stuff is interesting and stuff" type of attitude to something very real and very serious. I don't mean to say that a serious attitude is necessary because really the whole thing is kind of halarious but it was a necessary transition. The halarity obviously due in part to the fact that this whole sort of journey I'm describing was also not what it seems.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 6, 2013 3:09:10 GMT -5
I'm saying you already know the truth, you're just pretending not to. Don't take it personally, it's a very big club. IMO, the mind or rather the EGO cannot 'know' the truth, because it is in direct opposition to the truth. The EGO can only attack the truth, which justifies it's very own existence. Dear Dude/Dudette, nouns = mind stuff truth = noun ---> truth = mind stuff Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Apr 6, 2013 3:41:50 GMT -5
By the time the illusion of selfhood is seen through, imagination has been realized as the culprit that gave rise to the illusion of separation, Who is existing in time? Seen though by who? Who's imagination?[/quote] If there is enjoyment, that is mental activity to judge there is enjoyment. If there is observation, that is mental activity to judge there is observation. If there is no person existing in that situation, there is no observing or feeings, there is no one to sense and express these sensations. Dear Mr Goat, In your signature you’ve got a quote by Mr Nhat Hanh "Mindfulness refers to keeping one's consciousness alive to the present reality. It is the miracle by which we master and restore ourselves." Mr Nhat Hanh, being a Buddhist, would be well aware of the three marks of existence. Anicca (impermanence), Dukkha (dissatisfaction), and Anatta (no-self). And quoting from Wikipedia From what I can tell so far, and especially from your reply to ZD, you don’t seem to buy into this non-dual stuff. But then you go and quote a well known Buddhist in your signature, and Buddhists are into no self in a BIG WAY. How can you believe there is a self if you are referencing Buddhist teachings which state that there is no self? Kind Regards, Earnest.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 6, 2013 9:04:08 GMT -5
How can you believe there is a self if you are referencing Buddhist teachings which state that there is no self? salads! and pies and jello! oh my! Here is a penny: Now show me a pound! What makes sense to people makes sense to them. Varying tastes will introduce variation in recipes, and when the ingredients are ideas what's cookin' is a model.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2013 12:01:06 GMT -5
Who is existing in time? Seen though by who? Who's imagination? If there is enjoyment, that is mental activity to judge there is enjoyment. If there is observation, that is mental activity to judge there is observation. If there is no person existing in that situation, there is no observing or feeings, there is no one to sense and express these sensations. Dear Mr Goat, In your signature you’ve got a quote by Mr Nhat Hanh "Mindfulness refers to keeping one's consciousness alive to the present reality. It is the miracle by which we master and restore ourselves." Mr Nhat Hanh, being a Buddhist, would be well aware of the three marks of existence. Anicca (impermanence), Dukkha (dissatisfaction), and Anatta (no-self). And quoting from Wikipedia From what I can tell so far, and especially from your reply to ZD, you don’t seem to buy into this non-dual stuff. But then you go and quote a well known Buddhist in your signature, and Buddhists are into no self in a BIG WAY. How can you believe there is a self if you are referencing Buddhist teachings which state that there is no self? Kind Regards, Earnest. Mr Goat has also quoted Buddha repeatedly. Something along the lines of this: Fact is, he doesn't understand the quote he uses so much, but the point (and it seems to be yours as well) is that he cherry picks.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 6, 2013 12:04:39 GMT -5
If there is enjoyment, that is mental activity to judge there is enjoyment. If there is observation, that is mental activity to judge there is observation. If there is no person existing in that situation, there is no observing or feeings, there is no one to sense and express these sensations. Dear Mr Goat, In your signature you’ve got a quote by Mr Nhat Hanh "Mindfulness refers to keeping one's consciousness alive to the present reality. It is the miracle by which we master and restore ourselves." Mr Nhat Hanh, being a Buddhist, would be well aware of the three marks of existence. Anicca (impermanence), Dukkha (dissatisfaction), and Anatta (no-self). And quoting from Wikipedia From what I can tell so far, and especially from your reply to ZD, you don’t seem to buy into this non-dual stuff. But then you go and quote a well known Buddhist in your signature, and Buddhists are into no self in a BIG WAY. How can you believe there is a self if you are referencing Buddhist teachings which state that there is no self? Kind Regards, Earnest. Mr Goat has also quoted Buddha repeatedly. Something along the lines of this: Fact is, he doesn't understand the quote he uses so much, but the point (and it seems to be yours as well) is that he cherry picks. None of us sees around what we think we see. Uh, Truth!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2013 12:25:46 GMT -5
Mr Goat has also quoted Buddha repeatedly. Something along the lines of this: Fact is, he doesn't understand the quote he uses so much, but the point (and it seems to be yours as well) is that he cherry picks. None of us sees around what we think we see. Uh, Truth! The issue is the practice of making use of certain quotes from a teacher to make a point, while also declaring the same teacher wrong with regard to his most fundamental teachings. Typically, this is the result of misinterpreting the teachings.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 6, 2013 12:33:18 GMT -5
None of us sees around what we think we see. Uh, Truth! The issue is the practice of making use of certain quotes from a teacher to make a point, while also declaring the same teacher wrong with regard to his most fundamental teachings. Typically, this is the result of misinterpreting the teachings. Yes, I know. I was using your comment as a springboard to my own point.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Apr 6, 2013 12:46:20 GMT -5
Mmmmm mmmm good..... Sounds like two sides of a single side coin having a conversation. I've found through ATA-ing that most of the programmed stuff has fallen away. Much more of the thoughtless attention as you call it, seemingly occurs. It kinda starts as a meditation type thing but transforms into a constant state of being. I'm curious about this 'falling away'. Do you mean to say there's no clarity involved? Stuff just doesn't happen anymore? As what I call "natural focus" or child like focus becomes the primary way with which a form interacts, there is a "falling away" of previous egoic structures. Structures that were kept in place through incessant mental reinforcement; the me, my wants, my plans, my ideas about things, etc..., lose momentum and eventually no longer appear in the field of awareness. So there is clarity involved, but not the mental arrangement of words into clear sentences and sign posts, clarity. That kind of clarity comes along through thinking about how to use limitating words to explain an unlimited topic. Then writing/saying some to see if they work. They trying some more. Then some more. 18,000 posts later....... The clarity I talk of is a "non-trying" clarity. A clearer recognition of that which all of our words try to point towards. A return to youthful clarity where you experience the world without the mental vail of projections/labels/ideas about everything. Instead direct experience. Stuff still happens, but, without a mind labeling machine and egoic structures of I, stuff doesnt have the label of "stuff" and there isn't a perceived "someone" for it to "happen to. It gets describe as stuff happening when it's actually just ______________, (fingers typing, eyes dodging key to key, noise maker running to block the tinnitus, bed holding a body comfortably) ___________. So would you label that as "stuff happening or not happening"? Guess if its needed to be labeled we could call it either one. Although ___________ seems to describe it better to this mind/body...... ;P
|
|