|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 4, 2013 16:09:59 GMT -5
I have no idea what exactly to expect, but it should be something different from ordinary experience. Why else would I do ATA? So if you had some unordinary experience you would have concluded it worked? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 4, 2013 16:14:12 GMT -5
Tzu make some valid points at times but I disagree with him when he asserts that stillness is simply another aspect of mind. As I see it, if the mind were the moon, inner stillness would be like the space which makes the existence of the moon possible. Consciousness is like that to me. The Inner Space in which everything, including mind, have existence, and without which couldn't exist at all. Mind by definition is never still. That can seem true enough...but, I'm doubting that mind is always 'on' - I think that just as our bodies / minds seem to know when the body needs to rest or calm down, our minds do, too. We're just not watching it / aware of it when it switches off or is idling. Maybe it's our 'awareness' thingy that only seems to notice when the mind is moving and active. I doubt anything is fast enough to catch mind minding, heh...if you know what I mean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 16:15:24 GMT -5
Tzu make some valid points at times but I disagree with him when he asserts that stillness is simply another aspect of mind. As I see it, if the mind were the moon, inner stillness would be like the space which makes the existence of the moon possible. Consciousness is like that to me. The Inner Space in which everything, including mind, have existence, and without which couldn't exist at all. Mind by definition is never still. Would you accept energetic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 16:20:39 GMT -5
Mind by definition is never still. That can seem true enough...but, I'm doubting that mind is always 'on' - I think that just as our bodies / minds seem to know when the body needs to rest or calm down, our minds do, too. We're just not watching it / aware of it when it switches off or is idling. Maybe it's our 'awareness' thingy that only seems to notice when the mind is moving and active. I doubt anything is fast enough to catch mind minding, heh...if you know what I mean. There are times I feel quite refreshed when I return from a daydream.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 4, 2013 16:21:13 GMT -5
So if you had some unordinary experience you would have concluded it worked? Yes. So ATA to you was like developing a way to induce altered states in the same way a drug would? Only that it didn't work of course.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 4, 2013 16:21:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Of course it sounds confusing to 'you', you believe "it's all imagination", which leaves your claim that the person is an 'illusion' as another of your imagined beliefs.. as for 'ego', that too is an imagined concept.. you might be interested in settling that imagination of yours down, and trying a bit of clarity.. i'm sure it's scary for guys like you, letting go of your beliefs, but.. it's so much better than trying to explain all of those contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in your imagined beliefs.. give it try, just 'let go' of all those attachments and beliefs, just look and see what's actually happening.. Be well.. I feel a sequel coming on. You're doing something that Andrew has made a career out of. It's a TMT tar baby and distinguishes clarity from conceptual grasping. 'It's all imagination' is a pointer which you ingest with the mind and conclude that 'It's all a pointer' must be imagination too, which of course means that the idea that it's all imagination is all imagination, must be imagination too, ad infinitum, resulting in ambiguous paradox and know nothing confusion in the certainty of uncertainty. At least Andrew is willing to admit that's the result and give it a big ole bear hug. Surely it must make you a bit dizzy to do that, but there must be a sense of intellectual satisfaction that you've spotted the self evident truth or sumthin or you wouldn't do it, and then feed back that mental slag like it was pure gold for others to respect and admire.Nope.. i just don't get to that level of conjecture.. you claim TMT, then plow right into it like starving man into his first new meal.. the "mental slag" you are identifying are the conceptual beliefs you keep posting, that's the simplicity of it.. you claim it's all imagination, the inconsistency is identified, then you contort and conjecture plausible denial while creating a negative illusion about the person that points-out the inconsistency, it's 'what you do'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 4, 2013 16:25:01 GMT -5
Mind by definition is never still. That can seem true enough...but, I'm doubting that mind is always 'on' - I think that just as our bodies / minds seem to know when the body needs to rest or calm down, our minds do, too. We're just not watching it / aware of it when it switches off or is idling. Maybe it's our 'awareness' thingy that only seems to notice when the mind is moving and active. I doubt anything is fast enough to catch mind minding, heh...if you know what I mean. The reason why you can't pin down a mind thing is that it's just a term referring to the movement of thought. There is no movementless movement of thought and while thought can cease (deep sleep), there's absolutely nothing to say about it. In other words, the still mind experience is phony.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 4, 2013 16:26:59 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. As mind becomes 'still', inactive, it harmonizes with the condition you are describing as 'stillness'.. mind is the window through which we, as physical manifestations, see/experience our existence and our relationship with 'that which is'.. the 'still mind' is like a clear/clean 'window'.. Be well.. I agree with most of that. I wouldn't say that "we" are the physical manifestation though. I would say what we are is more akin to the "ghost" inside the machine. There is dependency when the pilot flies the fighter, a union of necessity, but it is a mistake to say that the pilot is the air craft, because the pilot has a life independent of the air craft, but the air craft has no "life" without the pilot to operate it. I understand you analogy, and i largely agree.. the pilot can exit the plane, though, and another pilot can fly it.. i understand that the body/mind/spirit relationship is fully integrated for the duration of the body's 'functional' existence.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 4, 2013 16:29:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Grace: Fluid dynamic movement, yep.. The rational, thinking, reasoning mind is balanced by the still clear attentive mind, two sides of the same mind, and both are necessary for existing in harmony with the 'whole' environment.. Be well.. (** let's go of the rope **) in a tug-o-war over the meaning of a word (or in this case, pair of words), losing is winning. Which "pair of words" are you 'tuggin on', i wasn't aware of a 'war'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 4, 2013 16:30:45 GMT -5
Mind by definition is never still. Would you accept energetic? I don't follow.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 4, 2013 16:31:42 GMT -5
FWIW, wrote this to a friend a few months back: One interesting pointer that some state is that the subject cannot observe itself -- it's a simple argument: what you are can't be anything that appears to you. This gets one to the witness but then there is still the witness and what is witnessed. There is of course no valid description of the recognition of the illusion of the subject/object split because we have to use language and the underlying basis of language (or any means of communication, or any embodiment of information, for that matter) is this split. Likewise, the absence of separation is always the case, but projecting this state of affairs into terms the mind can get a grip on might describe the realization of that as an inflection point where neti-neti ends and "I am none of this" carries the same meaning as "I am all of this". "both, neither and beyond both" We can't perceive ourselves as awareness when we have a quiet mind? (** splash! **)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 16:32:40 GMT -5
Would you accept energetic? I don't follow. I just gave the daydream example. I wasn't aware of anything during the day dream, but I return to waking state, refreshed, and at times, even energetic.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 4, 2013 16:34:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. That can seem true enough...but, I'm doubting that mind is always 'on' - I think that just as our bodies / minds seem to know when the body needs to rest or calm down, our minds do, too. We're just not watching it / aware of it when it switches off or is idling. Maybe it's our 'awareness' thingy that only seems to notice when the mind is moving and active. I doubt anything is fast enough to catch mind minding, heh...if you know what I mean. The reason why you can't pin down a mind thing is that it's just a term referring to the movement of thought. There is no movementless movement of thought and while thought can cease (deep sleep), there's absolutely nothing to say about it. In other words, the still mind experience is phony. It's not phony, it's just more difficult for some folks, and.. rather than admit they don't want to make the effort to understand, some of them demonize it.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 16:35:22 GMT -5
We can't perceive ourselves as awareness when we have a quiet mind? (** splash! **)
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 4, 2013 16:40:08 GMT -5
I have a physical body (energy, matter), a subtle body (mind, ego, intellect), and a causal body (spirit, soul). There is nothing in creation that is not myself. FWIW, wrote this to a friend a few months back: One interesting pointer that some state is that the subject cannot observe itself -- it's a simple argument: what you are can't be anything that appears to you. This gets one to the witness but then there is still the witness and what is witnessed. There is of course no valid description of the recognition of the illusion of the subject/object split because we have to use language and the underlying basis of language (or any means of communication, or any embodiment of information, for that matter) is this split. Likewise, the absence of separation is always the case, but projecting this state of affairs into terms the mind can get a grip on might describe the realization of that as an inflection point where neti-neti ends and "I am none of this" carries the same meaning as "I am all of this". "both, neither and beyond both" Your stipulation is based on a false premise.. Self-awareness is you appearing to you.. Be well..
|
|