|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2013 15:14:10 GMT -5
staying in the present .. doesn't work? where the hell else are you going to go? nevermind .. Bobby says that all people have to do to get enlightened is to attend qualia minus thoughts long enough and intensely enough. I'm saying that Bobby's approach is flawed. Not only is it extremely difficult to do what he proposes, but it's also no guarantee for anything. I've tried and it was a waste of time and resulted in nothing but frustration. This is not a philosohical debate, we don't care whether it should work or not in principle, all we care about is whether it in actuality works or not, which ATA clearly doesn't.
Oh, it's impossible to DO. No disagreement there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 15:21:24 GMT -5
Bobby says that all people have to do to get enlightened is to attend qualia minus thoughts long enough and intensely enough. I'm saying that Bobby's approach is flawed. Not only is it extremely difficult to do what he proposes, but it's also no guarantee for anything. I've tried and it was a waste of time and resulted in nothing but frustration. This is not a philosohical debate, we don't care whether it should work or not in principle, all we care about is whether it in actuality works or not, which ATA clearly doesn't.
Oh, it's impossible to DO. No disagreement there. If one wants results from a 'Doing', one should 'Not Do' what they are suppose to 'Do'... Unless your Andrew, than 'Not Doing' is a 'Doing'
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2013 15:25:37 GMT -5
How 'bout enlightenment is knowing which ideas to keep and which to leave in the dust? I kinda like that. Sure that works. And the Final Jeopardy question is: "What is ALL of them?" Aren't we constantly having ideas? Are most or all of our ideas garbage? Why toss them all out if we're just going to have them again? I also like the idea of unwanted thoughts getting weeded out - I think this is what happens when we do EFT or NLP type exercises. Ideas come and ideas go. My guess is that noone here would claim that ideas don't come and go. The trick is to see your relationship to them for what it is and to not mistake it for what it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2013 15:26:56 GMT -5
Oh, it's impossible to DO. No disagreement there. If one wants results from a 'Doing', one should 'Not Do' what they are suppose to 'Do'... Unless your Andrew, than 'Not Doing' is a 'Doing' No, that's not necessarily true!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 15:30:17 GMT -5
If one wants results from a 'Doing', one should 'Not Do' what they are suppose to 'Do'... Unless your Andrew, than 'Not Doing' is a 'Doing' No, that's not necessarily true! That would be a 'Doing'
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2013 15:40:05 GMT -5
No, that's not necessarily true! That would be a 'Doing' You seem to be stuck here, allow me to help. In one context, yes, it would be a doing, but in a subtle way, since even that isn't necessarily true, then we see that it might be a doerless doing in which case its not a doing at all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 16:06:30 GMT -5
Pair of wiseguys!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2013 16:08:23 GMT -5
this is not necessarily true
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jul 2, 2013 16:08:26 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 17:53:24 GMT -5
You seem to be stuck here, allow me to help. In one context, yes, it would be a doing, but in a subtle way, since even that isn't necessarily true, then we see that it might be a doerless doing in which case its not a doing at all. That's an argument directed more for Andrew... What I refer to as 'Doing' is the alignment/agreement all 7 billion of us share in 'Doing' the universe. Early on in our lives we move from an alignment/agreement with spirit, or as you say a 'Doerless' and join the club human race of 'Doers'. So I am in agreement with you when you refer to 'Not Doing' as re-aligning with spirit which isn't a 'Doer' of the universe. One could say that 'Not Doing' is abiding in being or that which is viewing the 'Doing' Which makes what I've posted a 'Doing'...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2013 18:40:07 GMT -5
You seem to be stuck here, allow me to help. In one context, yes, it would be a doing, but in a subtle way, since even that isn't necessarily true, then we see that it might be a doerless doing in which case its not a doing at all. That's an argument directed more for Andrew... What I refer to as 'Doing' is the alignment/agreement all 7 billion of us share in 'Doing' the universe. Early on in our lives we move from an alignment/agreement with spirit, or as you say a 'Doerless' and join the club human race of 'Doers'. So I am in agreement with you when you refer to 'Not Doing' as re-aligning with spirit which isn't a 'Doer' of the universe. One could say that 'Not Doing' is abiding in being or that which is viewing the 'Doing' Which makes what I've posted a 'Doing'... ... appologies trf ... Andrewism seems to be contagious ... you must be immoculated before you mock him!
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 3, 2013 11:50:43 GMT -5
Hi justlikyou, "...the stories of the mind are devoid of any reality, or Truth, since they are the stories of an illusory, separate and, thus, fearful entity (ego) which is constantly compelled to improve, control or manage its seemingly separate environment to feel secure." That account is roughly similar to the view that mind constructs a character for defensive purposes. In that view the constructed character is referred to as Ego. The construction is indeed a fiction but it has a purpose and mind constructs it for a that purpose. It is not a construction without value. If one could experience the life of another one would understand the nature of that others Ego and why it was necessary. The Ego is a valuable defense mechanism not to be attacked and derided as though it was a criminal intent on destroying you. Rather it is the opposite according to the view being expressed here. This denigration of the Ego is similar to the allegation TMT and again if seen in the context of each characters experience, the level of thinking would be exactly appropriate. Realization of the above does not mean that the Ego is dispensed with, for that the fears upon which it is realistically based (if seen in context) would have to be resolved. Usually these are to do with long past events unique to each characters life. Understanding this can result in a conscious awareness of the Ego facade that is presented to the world and the extent to which one feels it needs to be used in situations that vary in the level of perceived threat. Likewise one view of nondual realization does not mean the end of the Ego or whatever level of thinking a character may do. In this view such a realization means that whilst one is aware of ones Ego and its use, there is not the additional suffering of feeling disconnected whilst using it. amit Seems to me that the ego is a construct of the mind. The mind accumulates stories through conditioning and experience and constructs a "self" identity out of the thoughts and memories about that conditioning and experience. This is ego...or self. Its completely made up. Experience tells me that I am other than my history and conditioning. In fact, I am who I am before I knew a single word or had a first memory. I only know that I had a first memory because I was there prior to it, otherwise how could I have witnessed it when it arose? You may be mixing up the idea of ego with mind. Mind is not who I am, but mind is essential to who I am living and navigating this life. Hi justlikeyou, Understood, thanks. "I only know that I had a first memory because I was there prior to it, otherwise how could I have witnessed it when it arose? You may be mixing up the idea of ego with mind. Mind is not who I am, but mind is essential to who I am living and navigating this life". In one scenario, it is mind that is aware of Ego for it constructed and monitors it for its effectiveness in dealing with threats. In this view, without those threats there would be no Ego, no defensive separate character whatsoever. The mind would have no need to construct the Ego. It can easily be seen why the mind arranges for its construction (Ego) to be unaware of the events that led to its construction. If the Ego admits to those events the defense is weakened because the memorized responses are seen as a mere fictional construction for defensive purposes. The allegation "You are just being defensive" is always denied for that reason. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 12:09:12 GMT -5
Experience tells me that I am other than my history and conditioning. In fact, I am who I am before I knew a single word or had a first memory. I only know that I had a first memory because I was there prior to it, otherwise how could I have witnessed it when it arose? Is this a conclusion or an experience or both or something other? In the question you ask above, it seems like a conclusion. Might be right about that, I have no clue. But I can think of an alternative explanation for the phenomena which is not the same conclusion. For example, it might be that awareness is mythical. The fact of memory necessitates cognition of that memory. Another way of saying it: If a memory is like a little movie of some past event, there is no movie without light. No light no movie. This does not mean that the light is always on. Enigma gets around this question by saying it's a realization. To me that sounds like extra special knowledge is gained. But I have no realization to compare it to, so that's just how it sounds to me. It reminds me of when you ask how someone learned of God and they say the Bible. And you say okay what's the Bible and they say God's Word. And then you ask who says? and they say The Bible.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 3, 2013 18:23:52 GMT -5
Seems to me that the ego is a construct of the mind. The mind accumulates stories through conditioning and experience and constructs a "self" identity out of the thoughts and memories about that conditioning and experience. This is ego...or self. Its completely made up. Experience tells me that I am other than my history and conditioning. In fact, I am who I am before I knew a single word or had a first memory. I only know that I had a first memory because I was there prior to it, otherwise how could I have witnessed it when it arose? You may be mixing up the idea of ego with mind. Mind is not who I am, but mind is essential to who I am living and navigating this life. Hi justlikeyou, Understood, thanks. "I only know that I had a first memory because I was there prior to it, otherwise how could I have witnessed it when it arose? You may be mixing up the idea of ego with mind. Mind is not who I am, but mind is essential to who I am living and navigating this life". In one scenario, it is mind that is aware of Ego for it constructed and monitors it for its effectiveness in dealing with threats. In this view, without those threats there would be no Ego, no defensive separate character whatsoever. The mind would have no need to construct the Ego. It can easily be seen why the mind arranges for its construction (Ego) to be unaware of the events that led to its construction. If the Ego admits to those events the defense is weakened because the memorized responses are seen as a mere fictional construction for defensive purposes. The allegation "You are just being defensive" is always denied for that reason. amit Mind doesn't construct anything. Ego is a subset of thoughts included in what we call mind. Ego is part of mind. Mind is not an entity, not conscious. You are conscious. When you think, this is called mind. You are the one who constructs ego.
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Jul 3, 2013 18:40:38 GMT -5
Hi justlikeyou, Understood, thanks. "I only know that I had a first memory because I was there prior to it, otherwise how could I have witnessed it when it arose? You may be mixing up the idea of ego with mind. Mind is not who I am, but mind is essential to who I am living and navigating this life". In one scenario, it is mind that is aware of Ego for it constructed and monitors it for its effectiveness in dealing with threats. In this view, without those threats there would be no Ego, no defensive separate character whatsoever. The mind would have no need to construct the Ego. It can easily be seen why the mind arranges for its construction (Ego) to be unaware of the events that led to its construction. If the Ego admits to those events the defense is weakened because the memorized responses are seen as a mere fictional construction for defensive purposes. The allegation "You are just being defensive" is always denied for that reason. amit Mind doesn't construct anything. Ego is a subset of thoughts included in what we call mind. Ego is part of mind. Mind is not an entity, not conscious. You are conscious. When you think, this is called mind. You are the one who constructs ego. E, is the "you" who is conscious, who thinks, who constructs ego, a figure of speech? What where? Old subject I know, but still a lot of confusion about that stuff over here.
|
|