Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Aug 16, 2021 10:55:14 GMT -5
The idea of voluntary attention is another idea, as is the idea that it is a conscious, deliberate, choice. As long as there is an underlying idea of a "me" this illusion will persist. Your ATA-T is very close to voluntary attention, but not quite it. You do realize (meaning you don't) that you have drawn a conceptual boundary around your realizations? IOW, truth cannot break through the boundaries. You have zero interest in exploring what my words might indicate, because you are 100% sure you are correct and I am incorrect. OTOH sdp explores because I am only 1% sure of anything (voluntary attention is in that 1%). IOW, I understand beginner's mind. To be fair, you are the one "grading" the original post in red where the "errors" are and highlighting things you've deemed as true. I (and I believe others as well) can't help but run with my own compass on "truth" and to deny that would be disingenuous. It run's against personal experience. Nothing wrong with open-mindedness, of course.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 16, 2021 10:58:35 GMT -5
So voluntary attention is always a conscious, deliberate, choice (IOW, it never just happens).
------ It's just more of the same. Does the idea or impulse to make a so-called conscious deliberate choice simply arise within one's awareness? Of course it does. That's the whole point. Any action that follows from such an idea or impulse is by definition conditioned, even if its quality is that of feeling conscious or deliberate. I totally agree with you that choice happens and that attention can function in this way, but assuming a chooser behind the choice or some volitional control over attention outside of conditioning makes no sense to me. Telling someone that they could've behaved differently than they did in the past, or that they have the ability to consciously control their attention whenever they want seems to completely ignore this fundamental point: literally everything just happens, including any sudden urge or inclination to be attentive. I'm just sharing my experience. I didn't say anything about anybody behaving differently in the past. Everything just happens and happens in the only way it can happen, I agree. But we can observe what happens. Can. All I can say is that attention exists outside of conditioning, you can explore that, or not. All conditioning is a knee-jerk mechanism, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 16, 2021 11:01:22 GMT -5
Your ATA-T is very close to voluntary attention, but not quite it. You do realize (meaning you don't) that you have drawn a conceptual boundary around your realizations? IOW, truth cannot break through the boundaries. You have zero interest in exploring what my words might indicate, because you are 100% sure you are correct and I am incorrect. OTOH sdp explores because I am only 1% sure of anything (voluntary attention is in that 1%). IOW, I understand beginner's mind. To be fair, you are the one "grading" the original post in red where the "errors" are and highlighting things you've deemed as true. I (and I believe others as well) can't help but run with my own compass on "truth" and to deny that would be disingenuous. It run's against personal experience. Nothing wrong with open-mindedness, of course. zd's response had little if anything to do with the OP.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Aug 16, 2021 11:13:51 GMT -5
So voluntary attention is always a conscious, deliberate, choice (IOW, it never just happens).
------ It's just more of the same. Does the idea or impulse to make a so-called conscious deliberate choice simply arise within one's awareness? Of course it does. That's the whole point. Any action that follows from such an idea or impulse is by definition conditioned, even if its quality is that of feeling conscious or deliberate. I totally agree with you that choice happens and that attention can function in this way, but assuming a chooser behind the choice or some volitional control over attention outside of conditioning makes no sense to me. Telling someone that they could've behaved differently than they did in the past, or that they have the ability to consciously control their attention whenever they want seems to completely ignore this fundamental point: literally everything just happens, including any sudden urge or inclination to be attentive. I'm just sharing my experience. I didn't say anything about anybody behaving differently in the past. Everything just happens and happens in the only way it can happen, I agree. But we can observe what happens. Can. All I can say is that attention exists outside of conditioning, you can explore that, or not. All conditioning is a knee-jerk mechanism, I agree. We might not disagree at all here, and I apologize if I mistook your position or conflated it with Roy's at all. As I see it, when somebody posits a modicum of free will (referring to Roy's post and the "veto" ability as it pertains to thought) I take it that the person also postulates the idea that one could've acted differently in the past. They are, in some sense, synonymous. If one has some degree of volitional control over attention, even if everything else is determined, then that (assuming the movement or control of attention alone affects reality/perception of reality/one's psychological state) still allows for multiple situations to play out, and for "better" or "worse" outcomes in the end. For some this view may the last vestige of free will or clinging to some sort of volitional self, perhaps. In my view the observation of what happens, whether consciously (as in a mindfulness sense, or even a witness perspective) or unconsciously, is simply another part of the happening and it's that realization which is freeing - a realization which only arises when it does and could absolutely be called "grace" if one was so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 16, 2021 11:21:17 GMT -5
So voluntary attention is always a conscious, deliberate, choice (IOW, it never just happens).
------ It's just more of the same. Does the idea or impulse to make a so-called conscious deliberate choice simply arise within one's awareness? Of course it does. That's the whole point. Any action that follows from such an idea or impulse is by definition conditioned, even if its quality is that of feeling conscious or deliberate. I totally agree with you that choice happens and that attention can function in this way, but assuming a chooser behind the choice or some volitional control over attention outside of conditioning makes no sense to me. Telling someone that they could've behaved differently than they did in the past, or that they have the ability to consciously control their attention whenever they want seems to completely ignore this fundamental point: literally everything just happens, including any sudden urge or inclination to be attentive. I'm just sharing my experience. I didn't say anything about anybody behaving differently in the past. Everything just happens and happens in the only way it can happen, I agree. But we can observe what happens. Can. All I can say is that attention exists outside of conditioning, you can explore that, or not. All conditioning is a knee-jerk mechanism, I agree. There is no outside or inside. Outside and inside are ideas! The idea of conditioning presupposes an entity that is conditioned, but there is no such entity. The truth is beyond imagining but it includes imagining. I'm pointing to what is unconditioned, unborn, undying, undivided, infinite, unchanging, and incomprehensible to the mind.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 16, 2021 12:34:05 GMT -5
I'm just sharing my experience. I didn't say anything about anybody behaving differently in the past. Everything just happens and happens in the only way it can happen, I agree. But we can observe what happens. Can. All I can say is that attention exists outside of conditioning, you can explore that, or not. All conditioning is a knee-jerk mechanism, I agree. We might not disagree at all here, and I apologize if I mistook your position or conflated it with Roy's at all. As I see it, when somebody posits a modicum of free will (referring to Roy's post and the "veto" ability as it pertains to thought) I take it that the person also postulates the idea that one could've acted differently in the past. They are, in some sense, synonymous. If one has some degree of volitional control over attention, even if everything else is determined, then that (assuming the movement or control of attention alone affects reality/perception of reality/one's psychological state) still allows for multiple situations to play out, and for "better" or "worse" outcomes in the end. For some this view may the last vestige of free will or clinging to some sort of volitional self, perhaps. In my view the observation of what happens, whether consciously (as in a mindfulness sense, or even a witness perspective) or unconsciously, is simply another part of the happening and it's that realization which is freeing - a realization which only arises when it does and could absolutely be called "grace" if one was so inclined. Yes, "grace" is about the only word that feels applicable to that kind of realization.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 16, 2021 12:57:04 GMT -5
I'm just sharing my experience. I didn't say anything about anybody behaving differently in the past. Everything just happens and happens in the only way it can happen, I agree. But we can observe what happens. Can. All I can say is that attention exists outside of conditioning, you can explore that, or not. All conditioning is a knee-jerk mechanism, I agree. We might not disagree at all here, and I apologize if I mistook your position or conflated it with Roy's at all. As I see it, when somebody posits a modicum of free will (referring to Roy's post and the "veto" ability as it pertains to thought) I take it that the person also postulates the idea that one could've acted differently in the past. They are, in some sense, synonymous. If one has some degree of volitional control over attention, even if everything else is determined, then that (assuming the movement or control of attention alone affects reality/perception of reality/one's psychological state) still allows for multiple situations to play out, and for "better" or "worse" outcomes in the end. For some this view may the last vestige of free will or clinging to some sort of volitional self, perhaps. In my view the observation of what happens, whether consciously (as in a mindfulness sense, or even a witness perspective) or unconsciously, is simply another part of the happening and it's that realization which is freeing - a realization which only arises when it does and could absolutely be called "grace" if one was so inclined. I can't help it if you are jumping to conclusions I didn't say and have never said in 12 years here. Read the Ramana quotes in the OP again. If ~we~ couldn't do what he said to do I've sure he would never have given those instructions. Same for Niz's teacher. If it were not possible to remain in I Am, Niz's teacher would never have told him to do so. Saying to observe with attention in no way suggests we can do anything else. When you say yes, you couldn't have said no. When you say no, you couldn't have said yes. But it's possible to observe doing so. All this doesn't mean the conditioned self is doing anything, it's not, it can't. Are you completely the conditioning, completely the conditioned self? I know I am not. But a man is not able to say what he himself really is.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 16, 2021 13:02:35 GMT -5
I'm just sharing my experience. I didn't say anything about anybody behaving differently in the past. Everything just happens and happens in the only way it can happen, I agree. But we can observe what happens. Can. All I can say is that attention exists outside of conditioning, you can explore that, or not. All conditioning is a knee-jerk mechanism, I agree. There is no outside or inside. Outside and inside are ideas! The idea of conditioning presupposes an entity that is conditioned, but there is no such entity. The truth is beyond imagining but it includes imagining. I'm pointing to what is unconditioned, unborn, undying, undivided, infinite, unchanging, and incomprehensible to the mind. I only say I know why Ramana gave the instructions he did (the OP quotes).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 16, 2021 13:47:25 GMT -5
We might not disagree at all here, and I apologize if I mistook your position or conflated it with Roy's at all. As I see it, when somebody posits a modicum of free will (referring to Roy's post and the "veto" ability as it pertains to thought) I take it that the person also postulates the idea that one could've acted differently in the past. They are, in some sense, synonymous. If one has some degree of volitional control over attention, even if everything else is determined, then that (assuming the movement or control of attention alone affects reality/perception of reality/one's psychological state) still allows for multiple situations to play out, and for "better" or "worse" outcomes in the end. For some this view may the last vestige of free will or clinging to some sort of volitional self, perhaps. In my view the observation of what happens, whether consciously (as in a mindfulness sense, or even a witness perspective) or unconsciously, is simply another part of the happening and it's that realization which is freeing - a realization which only arises when it does and could absolutely be called "grace" if one was so inclined. I can't help it if you are jumping to conclusions I didn't say and have never said in 12 years here. Read the Ramana quotes in the OP again. If ~we~ couldn't do what he said to do I've sure he would never have given those instructions. Same for Niz's teacher. If it were not possible to remain in I Am, Niz's teacher would never have told him to do so. Saying to observe with attention in no way suggests we can do anything else. When you say yes, you couldn't have said no. When you say no, you couldn't have said yes. But it's possible to observe doing so. All this doesn't mean the conditioned self is doing anything, it's not, it can't. Are you completely the conditioning, completely the conditioned self? I know I am not. But a man is not able to say what he himself really is. The point that Xiao and I are making is that THIS/Source/Self is the only actor on the stage. THIS, in the form of Tony Parsons, tells people that there's nothing a "me" can do because "me" is imaginary. THIS, in the form of yours truly, advises ATA-T or any of several other "beyond the mind" activities. THIS, in the form of Niz, told people to stay in the I Am. THIS, in the form of a traditional Zen Master, advises people to sit in meditation. THIS is always interacting with ITSELF because there is no "other." When Jesus, as THIS, taught the parable about the farmer who threw seeds on the ground, this is what he, as THIS, was pointing to. THIS, in the form of humans, never knows how THIS will react to whatever is said. I might tell ten people about the value of shifting attention beyond the mind, and only one individual will resonate with that pointer. There's no way to predict what will happen because THIS is mysterious.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 16, 2021 13:53:26 GMT -5
There is no outside or inside. Outside and inside are ideas! The idea of conditioning presupposes an entity that is conditioned, but there is no such entity. The truth is beyond imagining but it includes imagining. I'm pointing to what is unconditioned, unborn, undying, undivided, infinite, unchanging, and incomprehensible to the mind. I only say I know why Ranana gave the instructions he did (the OP quotes). Ramana knew who he was, so he always knew what he had to do, and he never had any doubts about that. The only people who have doubts are those who don't yet realize who they are. If someone asked me, "Why are you doing what you are doing?" I'd have to laugh and reply, "Because I have to; because I have to." Of course, holding up one finger in silence would be an equivalent answer.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 16, 2021 15:57:27 GMT -5
I only say I know why Ranana gave the instructions he did (the OP quotes). Ramana knew who he was, so he always knew what he had to do, and he never had any doubts about that. The only people who have doubts are those who don't yet realize who they are. If someone asked me, "Why are you doing what you are doing?" I'd have to laugh and reply, "Because I have to; because I have to." Of course, holding up one finger in silence would be an equivalent answer. It is my impression that one characteristic of, and attraction to "this" (I call it "religion", but people might vehemently disagree) is that anybody, at any moment can become "self-realized", become the "it", no matter if you are an uneducated teenager, the stupid of the village, or such. It's interesting that people with pretensions of education, intelligence, culture are attracted to "this". Maybe it isn't surprising because it arises (I believe) from a lack of satisfaction with the reality they experienced so far, and intelligence isn't enough. There is also the attraction experienced by those who attained a certain level of intelligence toward the next level: intuition. It is Western civilizations' left brain perception of life, toward the Far Eastern civilizations' right brain perception of life. This doesn't mean that it is the best path. Maybe, it would help to do as Da Vinci did, start writing right-to-left ... (?)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 16, 2021 16:58:39 GMT -5
Ramana knew who he was, so he always knew what he had to do, and he never had any doubts about that. The only people who have doubts are those who don't yet realize who they are. If someone asked me, "Why are you doing what you are doing?" I'd have to laugh and reply, "Because I have to; because I have to." Of course, holding up one finger in silence would be an equivalent answer. It is my impression that one characteristic of, and attraction to "this" (I call it "religion", but people might vehemently disagree) is that anybody, at any moment can become "self-realized", become the "it", no matter if you are an uneducated teenager, the stupid of the village, or such. It's interesting that people with pretensions of education, intelligence, culture are attracted to "this". Maybe it isn't surprising because it arises (I believe) from a lack of satisfaction with the reality they experienced so far, and intelligence isn't enough. There is also the attraction experienced by those who attained a certain level of intelligence toward the next level: intuition. It is Western civilizations' left brain perception of life, toward the Far Eastern civilizations' right brain perception of life. This doesn't mean that it is the best path. Maybe, it would help to do as Da Vinci did, start writing right-to-left ... (?) Backwards...sdrawkcaB
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 16, 2021 18:35:31 GMT -5
I guess you can say there's nothing to be done except come to my satsang and not be contradicting yourself. See that's why all this talk just spins my brain up.
I need a respite. You guys are making me think again, but I see now that's not possible. I'll call this Cracker Jack advaita.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2021 19:22:05 GMT -5
Ramana knew who he was, so he always knew what he had to do, and he never had any doubts about that. The only people who have doubts are those who don't yet realize who they are. If someone asked me, "Why are you doing what you are doing?" I'd have to laugh and reply, "Because I have to; because I have to." Of course, holding up one finger in silence would be an equivalent answer. It is my impression that one characteristic of, and attraction to "this" (I call it "religion", but people might vehemently disagree) is that anybody, at any moment can become "self-realized", become the "it", no matter if you are an uneducated teenager, the stupid of the village, or such. It's interesting that people with pretensions of education, intelligence, culture are attracted to "this". Maybe it isn't surprising because it arises (I believe) from a lack of satisfaction with the reality they experienced so far, and intelligence isn't enough. There is also the attraction experienced by those who attained a certain level of intelligence toward the next level: intuition. It is Western civilizations' left brain perception of life, toward the Far Eastern civilizations' right brain perception of life. This doesn't mean that it is the best path. Maybe, it would help to do as Da Vinci did, start writing right-to-left ... (?) Inavalan, I'm curious, do you also post to other types of groups (for example, to Christians), to tell them they are misguided, delusional, or have "pretensions of intelligence" as you say above? Or, is it specifically something about this "Realization" stuff in this forum that compels you to do this repeatedly? In my case, if I think people are on a different path from me, I don't reach out to them to tell them they are wrong. For one, it's pointless. Two, they may not be "wrong" as much as just different. For example, I don't agree with "fundamentalist" Christians on much, and I almost never tell them that unless they knock on my door and try to convert me aggressively. Many of your posts are akin to telling people who've been to Antarctica that there is no such thing as snow and no Antarctica, when you yourself have never been to the south pole. In other words, you don't have a referent for what people are talking about. Reefs pointed this all out about a week ago, with more clarity and detail than I have patience for.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 16, 2021 21:02:01 GMT -5
It is my impression that one characteristic of, and attraction to "this" (I call it "religion", but people might vehemently disagree) is that anybody, at any moment can become "self-realized", become the "it", no matter if you are an uneducated teenager, the stupid of the village, or such. It's interesting that people with pretensions of education, intelligence, culture are attracted to "this". Maybe it isn't surprising because it arises (I believe) from a lack of satisfaction with the reality they experienced so far, and intelligence isn't enough. There is also the attraction experienced by those who attained a certain level of intelligence toward the next level: intuition. It is Western civilizations' left brain perception of life, toward the Far Eastern civilizations' right brain perception of life. This doesn't mean that it is the best path. Maybe, it would help to do as Da Vinci did, start writing right-to-left ... (?) Inavalan, I'm curious, do you also post to other types of groups (for example, to Christians), to tell them they are misguided, delusional, or have "pretensions of intelligence" as you say above? Or, is it specifically something about this "Realization" stuff in this forum that compels you to do this repeatedly? In my case, if I think people are on a different path from me, I don't reach out to them to tell them they are wrong. For one, it's pointless. Two, they may not be "wrong" as much as just different. For example, I don't agree with "fundamentalist" Christians on much, and I almost never tell them that unless they knock on my door and try to convert me aggressively. Many of your posts are akin to telling people who've been to Antarctica that there is no such thing as snow and no Antarctica, when you yourself have never been to the south pole. In other words, you don't have a referent for what people are talking about. Reefs pointed this all out about a week ago, with more clarity and detail than I have patience for. Why don't you put me on "ignore"?
|
|