|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 10, 2016 9:19:05 GMT -5
Yes, we can't really say it's necessary but I can't say it's unnecessary either. Just like there are thoughts that are unnecessary (ruminating about the past, worrying, etc. etc.) and there are thoughts that are useful. In the same way, there are things that can be done that are useful, depending on the individual's personality, inclinations, mind-set and so on. And things that are not and keep us in a spin or, as you say, solidify the personal ontology. I can't say unequivocally that it's all part of the spiritual circus as momentum trying to exhaust itself. Sometimes the spiritual 'activity' is true exploration and discovery that sends the looking to a deeper level. I say all true discovery results from the 'looking' to which ZD and I have both referred. I'm saying, and maybe he is too, that nothing else is of value once you've got yourself oriented as a seeker and have a direction. You know how some students tend to become 'career students'? We have lots of career seekers. The sincere seeker is the one with genuine curiosity, the one willing to experience life happening without trying to fit it into their preconceived ideas about what it should be.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 9:21:14 GMT -5
Okay so which one leads to enlightenment, +T or -T? Neither. But (for me, AFAIAC) it like planting crops. ATA-T is like plowing a field. You might have a crop if you just throw seeds out in a field. But you are going to have better results if you plow the field, turn over the soil, make rows, make a furrow or hills, plant the seed, correct depth, water it, cover it. And you get better results planting at the right time for the right crop. IMvhO&E ATA+T is a misnomer. What you are actually doing is moving back and forth between ATA-T, and thinking. I find that ATA actually stops thought, thus, it becomes ATA-T. So, there is either ATA-T, or thinking. ATA+T is something else. (This is beyond verbal debate. It has to come from personal exploration). Mileage may vary. Crikey, all that from what was a tongue in cheek comment from me. I can't say I really follow you. Did you read my post? spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/331331 |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 10, 2016 9:26:08 GMT -5
Okay so which one leads to enlightenment, +T or -T? There is no 'enlightenment', when the experiencer returns to neutral there is only their relationship with the happening.. stillness (-T) is essential for clarity, thinking (+T) is essential for survival, and 'enlightenment' is an illusion that traps seekers in an ideological belief-system.. Actual liberation, freedom from the known, is terrifying for many people so they conjure attachments that serve as anchors and safety from the fear of letting it ALL go.. I agree pretty-much, meaning, I'd say the big E is pretty rare. I'd say we can have "kensho" or "satori", IT might last a flash or sometimes longer. It's like a "mountain top experience", but then you come back down from the mountain, you come back to your ordinary mind. But these can be sort of like the rudder of an ocean liner, this very small part of the ship turns the whole ship, but it's relatively slow in doing so. Big E would be a permanent change, no coming back to ordinary day to day mind, a Buddha, a Lao Tzu, a Jesus. Now, anybody can tell the difference (in themselves). I think some people can have small e, small kensho, small satori, revert back to ordinary mind but think they are "well done", totally baked. Andrew Cohen comes to mind. But small e/satori/kensho should be like yeast, permeating the whole. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 10, 2016 9:28:49 GMT -5
Neither. But (for me, AFAIAC) it like planting crops. ATA-T is like plowing a field. You might have a crop if you just throw seeds out in a field. But you are going to have better results if you plow the field, turn over the soil, make rows, make a furrow or hills, plant the seed, correct depth, water it, cover it. And you get better results planting at the right time for the right crop. IMvhO&E ATA+T is a misnomer. What you are actually doing is moving back and forth between ATA-T, and thinking. I find that ATA actually stops thought, thus, it becomes ATA-T. So, there is either ATA-T, or thinking. ATA+T is something else. (This is beyond verbal debate. It has to come from personal exploration). Mileage may vary. ATA-T doesn't lead anywhere because ATA-T itself is a creation, Creation always influences it's opposite and recreates it. ATA+T doesn't lead anywhere because it expects something to be noticed. Of course you are welcome to your opinion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 9:38:55 GMT -5
ATA-T doesn't lead anywhere because ATA-T itself is a creation, Creation always influences it's opposite and recreates it. ATA+T doesn't lead anywhere because it expects something to be noticed. Of course you are welcome to your opinion. Oh that's great, Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 10, 2016 9:53:07 GMT -5
Neither. But (for me, AFAIAC) it like planting crops. ATA-T is like plowing a field. You might have a crop if you just throw seeds out in a field. But you are going to have better results if you plow the field, turn over the soil, make rows, make a furrow or hills, plant the seed, correct depth, water it, cover it. And you get better results planting at the right time for the right crop. IMvhO&E ATA+T is a misnomer. What you are actually doing is moving back and forth between ATA-T, and thinking. I find that ATA actually stops thought, thus, it becomes ATA-T. So, there is either ATA-T, or thinking. ATA+T is something else. (This is beyond verbal debate. It has to come from personal exploration). Mileage may vary. Crikey, all that from what was a tongue in cheek comment from me. I can't say I really follow you. Did you read my post? spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/331331I just read the words on the page, and responded. First paragraph, just analogy. Second paragraph, just my experience (E). It's not complicated. But this is like a,b,c's. I hadn't seen your post, your link, just read it. I've been considering another post in reply to ZD. Your meditation post relates. When I get to that reply it will speak to your meditation I am post. We all know about the inner world, we all know about the outer world. (Some here say there is no inner and outer, it's all just one). But Gurdjieff said there is a possibility for a third world. Possibility means, not now is. This third world was what all his teaching was about, what everything led to. Life is real only then, when "I am". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 9:58:05 GMT -5
I just read the words on the page, and responded. First paragraph, just analogy. Second paragraph, just my experience (E). It's not complicated. But this is like a,b,c's. I hadn't seen your post, your link, just read it. I've been considering another post in reply to ZD. Your meditation post relates. When I get to that reply it will speak to your meditation I am post. We all know about the inner world, we all know about the outer world. (Some here say there is no inner and outer, it's all just one). But Gurdjieff said there is a possibility for a third world. Possibility means, not now is. This third world was what all his teaching was about, what everything led to. Life is real only then, when "I am". Yes, there is no inner and outer, those are division exist only in our imaginary, all we know is we perceive,we are perceiving both and both are JUST perceptions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 10:05:25 GMT -5
I just read the words on the page, and responded. First paragraph, just analogy. Second paragraph, just my experience (E). It's not complicated. But this is like a,b,c's. I hadn't seen your post, your link, just read it. I've been considering another post in reply to ZD. Your meditation post relates. When I get to that reply it will speak to your meditation I am post. We all know about the inner world, we all know about the outer world. (Some here say there is no inner and outer, it's all just one). But Gurdjieff said there is a possibility for a third world. Possibility means, not now is. This third world was what all his teaching was about, what everything led to. Life is real only then, when "I am". Yes, there is no inner and outer, those are division exist only in our imaginary, all we know is we perceive,we are perceiving both and both are JUST perceptions. We need to understand there is an inner and outer to enable us to go within and look for the inner world of the unchanging. But when we find it and know what it is then we know there is no inner or outer. It was just an illusion. You see what appears to be snake and then see it is really rope. There never was any snake. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 11:04:19 GMT -5
Yes, there is no inner and outer, those are division exist only in our imaginary, all we know is we perceive,we are perceiving both and both are JUST perceptions. We need to understand there is an inner and outer to enable us to go within and look for the inner world of the unchanging. But when we find it and know what it is then we know there is no inner or outer. It was just an illusion. You see what appears to be snake and then see it is really rope. There never was any snake. That is only a pre-enlightenment realization. Post enlightenment there is no snake and there is no rope.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 10, 2016 11:21:26 GMT -5
SDP: You wrote, "But the underlined is not the same as the bold [If you fill the "mind" with the bold, there is not "room" for thought]." The underlined IS THE SAME as the bold. What I'm pointing to is NOT filling the mind with the bold or anything else; it is just pumping gas. There's no trying to do anything; all actions remain simple and empty. By relaxing into being what you already are, without trying to get something, realizations will occur that will inform mind. Everything has already been set in motion by the search, so, in a sense, you are surrendering to reality in whatever way it presents itself. Gurdjieff, Rose, and many other teachers have developed complex cosmologies and explanations, but I'm suggesting letting go of all that in favor of something simpler and more obvious. No levels, no evolution, no development, no movement at all. As Silence once said, "This. Is. It." As someone else once said, "What you already are is what you're looking for." As Seng Sten said, "Make one distinction, and heaven and earth are set infinitely far apart." So you are saying not to ATA(-T) while pumping gas? (IOW, ATA(-T) or no ATA(-T), it doesn't matter)? (Because it's exceptionally very easy not to ATA-T while pumping gas). I'm saying to trust that what you are can resolve any problem it wishes to resolve. If you've tried something for a long time, and no insights have occurred, or if you have doubts, then either try something else or perhaps give up all efforting for a while and give yourself a rest. Many famous scientists have wrestled with specific problems, and had big breakthroughs while on vacation and not thinking about their problems. G. Spencer Brown claims that Isaac Newton walked in his garden for many years contemplating what he wanted to know (how to create a math for solving equations involving variables that changed in relationship to each other), and a huge insight into the structure of the calculus suddenly appeared to him that allowed him to sit down and write it all down. Other scientists have reported similar breakthroughs when they let go of their thoughts and relaxed for a while. OTOH, if you feel confident in pursuing a particular meditative approach, then stay with it. This body/mind was fascinated by ATA-T, and I concluded that it had many advantages over other meditative activities. It also became fun. I gradually became confident that if I continued doing that, insights and deepening periods of unity would continue to occur. I didn't know if SR/TR would occur, but I felt compelled to do ATA-T regardless of whether or not it would lead to freedom in this lifetime. In my case, ATA-T led to significant internal silence, and I greatly enjoyed walking in the woods and hiking in the mountains while looking at everything in silence. I knew that I wasn't psychologically free, but it seemed to me that internal silence was highly correlated with various insights that had already been attained, and I knew of nothing that was any more likely to resolve my remaining existential questions. You often write about Gurdjieff's idea that attaining clarity must involve hard work and is very rare and esoteric. During his lifetime things may have appeared that way to him, but today batgap ("Buddha at the gas pump" website) has hundreds of interviews with people whose stories don't support that model at all. Many people have big realizations right out of the blue, and I can't remember anyone describing their path as one that required hard work. The book, "Everyday Enlightenment," is another source that challenges the idea that enlightenment (however defined) is "special" in any way. IOW, keep an open mind about all this stuff. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 11:30:43 GMT -5
We need to understand there is an inner and outer to enable us to go within and look for the inner world of the unchanging. But when we find it and know what it is then we know there is no inner or outer. It was just an illusion. You see what appears to be snake and then see it is really rope. There never was any snake. That is only a pre-enlightenment realization. Post enlightenment there is no snake and there is no rope. Pre-enlightenment realization? Ha ha, that's a new one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 12:20:41 GMT -5
Yes, there is no inner and outer, those are division exist only in our imaginary, all we know is we perceive,we are perceiving both and both are JUST perceptions. We need to understand there is an inner and outer to enable us to go within and look for the inner world of the unchanging. But when we find it and know what it is then we know there is no inner or outer. It was just an illusion. You see what appears to be snake and then see it is really rope. There never was any snake. But you still haven't seen the orchestration of universe,aren't you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 12:29:59 GMT -5
We need to understand there is an inner and outer to enable us to go within and look for the inner world of the unchanging. But when we find it and know what it is then we know there is no inner or outer. It was just an illusion. You see what appears to be snake and then see it is really rope. There never was any snake. But you still haven't seen the orchestration of universe,aren't you? The concert is over. They've packed up and gone home already. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 10, 2016 13:00:58 GMT -5
But you still haven't seen the orchestration of universe,aren't you? The concert is over. They've packed up and gone home already.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2016 18:44:15 GMT -5
That is only a pre-enlightenment realization. Post enlightenment there is no snake and there is no rope. Pre-enlightenment realization? Ha ha, that's a new one. It's a nice way of saying that you are only half way there...  |
|
