A spiritual person is...

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,387
Reaction score
2,630
Points
108
Hi Lunitik —
I have only stated that Christ is not unique, by any means.
And I have stated why I believe your assumption has missed the vital part.

You have been there? Tell me about it.
I do not discuss my personal life here. The point is however, that if the higher realms are 'haphazard, chaotic or anarchic' then any dialogue is void because nothing can be meaningfully said about anything, can it, because nothing is certain or lasting.

Buddha, the Sufi's, many Hindu schools, even the Gnostics and Kaballists of your own tradition would flatly disagree.
Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. Many Western pop commentators, interested in selling books, would claim so, but the real deal, as it were, always stand by the fact that one's own experience has to be tested and viewed from within a traditional framework.

If not, then you're claiming infallibility.

Your assertion is correct, however your conclusion is flawed.
Show me how so?

There are esoteric schools within every tradition, but to say they are necessary absolutely is false.
It's not a case of true or false, rather it's in the nature of things. One man's esoterism is another man's exoterism. As someone once declared, "esoterism is too often just knowledge with an unhealthy dose of ego".

I would disagree...
Qwell, you're welcome to your own opinion, but I view 'religion' in light of its primary purpose.

America is a very Christian nation, their soldiers are given the Bible when stationed in Iraq.
You seriously think America is conducting this conflict in defence of, and for the benefit of, Christianity?

Umm, so Christ didn't go nuts in the synagogue and begin flipping tables and yelling that they are desecrating his fathers house? I am asking how you think this was viewed by the Jews...
Ah, it annoyed them no end, especially as what He was saying they knew to be true.

If he never went away, where is he? The Bible says he is at the right hand of God, this appears to be outside Jerusalem?
Oh dear, is this sarcasm again?

I am fully aware of the truth of the totality and dependency of love on spiritual development. It is integral to satori, for this is all that is left when all views - including God - are removed. This is the core of our being. The Bible actually confirms this, 1 John 4:8 tells us God is love, and we are also told that we have our being in God and he in us. Thus, everything inward and outward consists of love.
OK. And at what point is God 'removed'? And where to, may I ask?

Feel free to explain it to me, what is so great about going to heaven? I get to serve God for all eternity, how is this supposed to be appealing?
Oh good grief! You mean you have something better to do? Or you're more important than God?

There is a metaphysical condition called 'rest', which means a given nature has attained its perfection ... what more can it do? Nothing. What more can it be? Nothing. Where else can it go? ... I assume you get the point.

Is life everlasting really that appealing? No matter how awesome it is, if it lasted for eternity, you would eventually see this as normal and become immune to the effects.
It's only humanity, locked in its contingency, that aks the questions you are asking, or makes the assumptions you are making.

Yes, I certainly do not understand the Good News.
No you don't, that's evidently apparent.

Christianity is superficial, there is no genuine change in the Christian it is all merely a surface difference.
Sounds like you've never met a decent Christian. Or maybe your prejudice blinds you to the truth.

They justify this saying we are all humans and thus these faults can never be overcome.
Wrong. If that were the case, there'd be no doctrine on sin, or sanctity, would there?

whereas Christians actually avoid the goal because it has been declared heretical to attain Christ-hood, you will notice that in Buddhism, you are taught "Do not be a Buddhist, be a Buddha". This is a stark difference between the faiths.
Yes, Buddha is a human state (Enlightened). Christ is a divine state. In Christianity, you are taught to be 'in Christ' which is to be 'in God'. Can't get higher than that.

What you see as an avoidance, is actually a transcendence, it's just that you've missed the point by making certain erroneous suppositions.

Feel free to cite them, I will explain through your own teachings if you please.
You don't really understand the first thing about my teachings, that is evident. What you understand is the same order of polemical opinion I can get from almost anyone.

By way of example, St Augustine said, of the Eucharist:
"Be what you can see, and receive what you are"
Sermon 272


God bless,

Thomas
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
262
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
In Buddhist thought, there is still the concept of atman I believe, however Brahman is not really named, only referred to as the interconnectedness. There is Buddhakaya in Buddhism which is perhaps the conscious of the interconnectedness, the originator of the Dharma, but most Buddhists would not speak of it in this way. The concept is there in Sufism also, they talk often about losing yourself, finding the true self and becoming one with God.

All the religions essentially agree this is religion, nothing else. Every faith talks about how to drop our common delusions of self, the wall we build between us and God because it seems rational due to our senses. We can never find God when this wall is present though, the more we move into egotistical thought, the further we go from our nature, we see this with the modern atheist movement. You are the only thing which is between yourself and God, and yet we are on an interfaith site so you'd think people here would avoid fortifying their wall.
Ananda Sutta
 

Lunitik

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
1
Points
0
And I have stated why I believe your assumption has missed the vital part.

Then I have missed it, feel free to further elucidate.

I do not discuss my personal life here. The point is however, that if the higher realms are 'haphazard, chaotic or anarchic' then any dialogue is void because nothing can be meaningfully said about anything, can it, because nothing is certain or lasting.

I am suggesting there is no "higher realm", if you know better, then that is fine. Where there is plurality, it is necessary that there be the appearance of chaos. If there were higher realms of existence, they would comply with the same laws as this realm - ie, that of course and effect, theory of relativity, karma. Does it trouble you that there is no meaning to existence, that it simply is because it is? All existence is impermanent, ever changing. In Hindu philosophy, for example, existence as we know it is merely the breath of Brahma, the exhalation, upon inhalation existence ceases. Indeed, even Brahma will die, however, for Brahma is not the absolute. Brahma is merely the creation of Brahman, another part of existence. Beyond existence entirely is Brahman, the original cause.

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. Many Western pop commentators, interested in selling books, would claim so, but the real deal, as it were, always stand by the fact that one's own experience has to be tested and viewed from within a traditional framework.

If not, then you're claiming infallibility.

I claim nothing, I only tell you what I have discovered. My knowledge is not complete by any stretch, thus it can only be fallible. It is impossible that it be anything else, for both my comprehension and tools for communication are limited. What I have said is still accurate within those confines however.

Show me how so?

I spent the rest of the paragraph explaining how so...

It's not a case of true or false, rather it's in the nature of things. One man's esoterism is another man's exoterism. As someone once declared, "esoterism is too often just knowledge with an unhealthy dose of ego".

This is not what is meant by esoteric in this usage, an esoteric school is a school which is only joined through initiation. However, what you state about esoteric and exoteric is equally flawed. Every belief you have has been rationalized esoterically, all that is exoteric is the rituals which confirm it. It is necessary that you form personal ideas about all abstract concepts which you have not experienced, for you have no point of reference. It is only free from ego if you realize the ego is an illusion, otherwise it is necessarily shaped by it. The entire concept of heaven and everlasting life are functions of egotistical greed.

Well, you're welcome to your own opinion, but I view 'religion' in light of its primary purpose.

The word means "to re-bind", it can have no other purpose, for otherwise we change the root meaning of the word.

You seriously think America is conducting this conflict in defence of, and for the benefit of, Christianity?

Yes, this is confirmed simply by listening to Bush's speeches relating to God.

Ah, it annoyed them no end, especially as what He was saying they knew to be true.

Did they? I am sure they held their traditions just as firmly as Christians do today.

Oh dear, is this sarcasm again?

Somewhat, however the question is still valid, show me that Christ has never left. In Buddhist and Hindu traditions it is easy to see, for there are living Buddha's and Brahman's to this day, I am unaware of any Christ's on earth.

OK. And at what point is God 'removed'? And where to, may I ask?

God was not there, for he is a view. Satori is the experience of the ultimate, the interconnected consciousness of the Universe. All concepts that confirm plurality must be dropped to know it, through a belief in God as separate, we maintain a dual mind... the Bible itself tells us this is not so, for it says we have our being in God, we are a part of God. Religion is about realizing this through experiencing it, knowing that all insistence on individuality is against this oneness.

Oh good grief! You mean you have something better to do? Or you're more important than God?

There is a metaphysical condition called 'rest', which means a given nature has attained its perfection ... what more can it do? Nothing. What more can it be? Nothing. Where else can it go? ... I assume you get the point.

I think I already answer this in the previous stanza, after physical life ceases there is no longer a boundary unless you insist on it. In Western thought, if you insist on clinging to individuality you are reborn, if you reach Moksha or Nirvana, you understand this is unnecessary and merge utterly with God, Brahman, the interconnected. There is no longer a you at all, it can perhaps be said that being reborn is a form of hell in these beliefs, for life is an endless cycle of suffering. It is inevitable that we suffer if we remain distinct.

It's only humanity, locked in its contingency, that aks the questions you are asking, or makes the assumptions you are making.

I beg to differ, rather, it only humanity that wishes to believe they will live forever, we are obsessed with death, with ceasing to be what we perceive we are. Religion is about realizing this fallacy, about realizing the truth behind our delusion. If it takes us deeper into illusion, it has done harm.

No you don't, that's evidently apparent.

Honestly, it is more like a nightmare to me. Being is fun, but it gets redundant. I am grateful for the experience, but I am barely 1/3 of the way through the expected span of it. This earth is something like 4.5 billion years old, I cannot fathom it. I certainly do not wish to experience this kind of longevity.

Sounds like you've never met a decent Christian. Or maybe your prejudice blinds you to the truth.

Superficial means surface deep, they may act as they perceive saintly people should, but nothing genuine is attained. I recently attended a Catholic baptism, during this ceremony the higher three energy centers are included in the ritual. When asking the priest if he knew what they meant, he had no idea the significance. Christianity points at spiritual practice, but it has lost its knowledge of it.

Wrong. If that were the case, there'd be no doctrine on sin, or sanctity, would there?

Christians are taught we are all sinners, that sin is unavoidable. You deny this? If you do, explain the need for repentance. On Catholic television, priests and bishops confess their own trials and need for forgiveness, justifying their sins variously as unavoidable. This is what I mean, and my statement is certainly true.

Yes, Buddha is a human state (Enlightened). Christ is a divine state. In Christianity, you are taught to be 'in Christ' which is to be 'in God'. Can't get higher than that.

What you see as an avoidance, is actually a transcendence, it's just that you've missed the point by making certain erroneous suppositions.

Enlightenment is variously described as "enjoining with God" by various schools that hold such beliefs, however the difference is that one maintains plurality, while the other teaches the realization of oneness. Jesus was a mere man, not unlike Sidhartha... Christ and Buddha are their attainment, their enlightenment. To hold that they are something else, that there status is unattainable by men, is to limit ourselves or glorify them. This is an act of egotism, making oneself distinct among peers. At the same time, I fully accept that both have merged with God, are after Enlightenment essentially God's on earth. This is the error of the Christian Church, however, through giving power to men which have not attained this state to define it, they have not understood it. They are devotee's of Christ, but they are not enlightened men, they cannot be for their explanations prove their lack of understanding.
 

Lunitik

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
1
Points
0

Ahh, so Buddha is specifically avoiding alignment with the Hindu teachings about Atman, although his conclusion seems to confirm anyway. Non-self and self as delusion appears to be one in the same, but self and no self are merely opposite views confirming a self in different ways. Perhaps since his time, the concept of atman has evolved to align with his teaching through realization of his intent.

Thank you for the link.
 

luecy7

Well-Known Member
Messages
892
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have not seen you actually expand the Golden Rule, this is what I am requesting you do. The words are irrelevant if you do not explain what they mean to you.
False. The words are relevant whether I explain what they mean to me, or not. Do your own homework.

I have expressed meditation as a method for realizing oneness, once this is realized then everything else is understood. I have also more recently stated that contemplation can result in the same, although it is more difficult because the mind wishes to be logical, rational.
I have expressed that reducing the mind to no thoughts, and correspondingly the body to no action, is not the method for being one with anyone, including God.

You stated you believe me to be delusional, I have apparently misinterpreted this statement, apologies.
I have stated several delusions that I see by your words, but your experience from meditation is not one of them. I am sure it is very real and orgasmic for you to think nothing and do nothing. Are you an extremist? Do you think you are either delusional, or not delusional? Either using your mind, or not using your mind?

I have already stated that consciousness is distinct from mind. When you are fully aware of your surroundings, the people around you, it is not necessary to involve mind other than in communication. If someone is down, make them laugh, try to lift them. If someone is carrying bags, ask to help. It is not necessary to involve mind, for what? To ask "should I help this person, or remain in my own world"? What is the need?
I have stated that you are not truly aware of people except through interaction.

We take things on faith because they are outside our perception, meditation is used to perceive without need of faith what is real.
You have not aligned yourself with a faith, so I am not sure why you even feel the "we" applied directly to you in the first place? It doesn't apply to me either, for I rely on experience, I just have experiences which seem irrational to those which do not understand. By "we" is meant humans in this instance, I am still human, you are still human, however this is a generality - all generalities have exceptions.
Can you show me in the Torah, Gospel, or Koran, or even the words of Buddha, where you think the term 'faith' is used in the way that you used it in that statement?

Obviously, any form of communication is not meditative by its very nature, rather it is a distraction. Then, what is the point of perfecting love, becoming love, if I do not share it? This is not a commodity, in fact the more you share of it the more it increases. Devotion to a life of spiritual practice would not represent balance, but then, neither would living a materialist life.
It is not surprising that your idea of being spiritual does not involve communication, or really being loving, even calling it a distraction. For what you call being spiritual, apathy is the closest word that comes to mind.

There is being loving, and hateful, and then there is that meditative absence of both.
There is being honest and dishonest with others, and there is that meditative absence of both.
There is faith and war with others, and then there is that meditative absence of both.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
262
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
Ahh, so Buddha is specifically avoiding alignment with the Hindu teachings about Atman, although his conclusion seems to confirm anyway. Non-self and self as delusion appears to be one in the same, but self and no self are merely opposite views confirming a self in different ways. Perhaps since his time, the concept of atman has evolved to align with his teaching through realization of his intent.

Thank you for the link.
The question on the self is one to be put aside:
Pañha Sutta: Questions


"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
First the categorical answer, then the qualified, third, the type to be counter-questioned, & fourth, the one to be set aside.

Any monk who knows which is which, in line with the Dhamma, is said to be skilled in the four types of questions: hard to overcome, hard to beat, profound, hard to defeat. He knows what's worthwhile & what's not, proficient in (recognizing) both, he rejects the worthless, grasps the worthwhile. He's called one who has broken through to what's worthwhile, prudent, wise.​
 

Lunitik

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
1
Points
0
The question on the self is one to be put aside:
Pañha Sutta: Questions

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
First the categorical answer, then the qualified, third, the type to be counter-questioned, & fourth, the one to be set aside.

Any monk who knows which is which, in line with the Dhamma, is said to be skilled in the four types of questions: hard to overcome, hard to beat, profound, hard to defeat. He knows what's worthwhile & what's not, proficient in (recognizing) both, he rejects the worthless, grasps the worthwhile. He's called one who has broken through to what's worthwhile, prudent, wise.​

I agree, it is an impossible question to justifiably answer to someone which does not know... the discussion with luecy in this thread is sort of displaying the wisdom in this :p
 

Lunitik

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
1
Points
0
False. The words are relevant whether I explain what they mean to me, or not. Do your own homework.

I have explained already what they mean for me.

I have expressed that reducing the mind to no thoughts, and correspondingly the body to no action, is not the method for being one with anyone, including God.

I have categorically disputed this, especially the latter statement. Thoughts necessitate plurality, and thus do not permit realization of oneness. You are free to disagree, but I am growing tired of stating this.

I have stated several delusions that I see by your words, but your experience from meditation is not one of them. I am sure it is very real and orgasmic for you to think nothing and do nothing. Are you an extremist? Do you think you are either delusional, or not delusional? Either using your mind, or not using your mind?

In fact, I am a seeker of balance in every way, you are the extremist among us, for you do not seem to fathom that it is possible to practice spiritual discipline and then act upon it with others. You do not seem to fathom that it is possible to only leave a meditative state when it is necessary to communicate with another, apparently you are under the impression that the complete awareness of this state actually makes you less functional when performing various tasks. It is not a balance when you favour spiritual or material over the other, but at the same time - where plurality is not a prerequisite - it is possible to integrate both.

I have stated that you are not truly aware of people except through interaction.

I have stated nothing of the sort, what I have stated is that it is not possible to experience oneness while engaging other people - the very act of engaging another is to cease oneness, there are now two.

Can you show me in the Torah, Gospel, or Koran, or even the words of Buddha, where you think the term 'faith' is used in the way that you used it in that statement?

None of these books were written in English, here is what our dictionary has to say about the word:

faith

[feyth]
–noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.


(emphasis added, for this is my use of the word... since it was not a quote of scripture, it is not necessary to substantiate it through scripture)

It is not surprising that your idea of being spiritual does not involve communication, or really being loving, even calling it a distraction. For what you call being spiritual, apathy is the closest word that comes to mind.

There is being loving, and hateful, and then there is that meditative absence of both.
There is being honest and dishonest with others, and there is that meditative absence of both.
There is faith and war with others, and then there is that meditative absence of both.

How exactly do you draw the conclusion that my idea of spirituality is not about being loving when I have stated meditation is the perfection of love? Spiritual and meditative are not synonyms.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
262
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
False. The words are relevant whether I explain what they mean to me, or not. Do your own homework.

I have expressed that reducing the mind to no thoughts, and correspondingly the body to no action, is not the method for being one with anyone, including God.

I have stated several delusions that I see by your words, but your experience from meditation is not one of them. I am sure it is very real and orgasmic for you to think nothing and do nothing. Are you an extremist? Do you think you are either delusional, or not delusional? Either using your mind, or not using your mind?

I have stated that you are not truly aware of people except through interaction.


Can you show me in the Torah, Gospel, or Koran, or even the words of Buddha, where you think the term 'faith' is used in the way that you used it in that statement?

It is not surprising that your idea of being spiritual does not involve communication, or really being loving, even calling it a distraction. For what you call being spiritual, apathy is the closest word that comes to mind.

There is being loving, and hateful, and then there is that meditative absence of both.
There is being honest and dishonest with others, and there is that meditative absence of both.
There is faith and war with others, and then there is that meditative absence of both.
Please check out Psalm 1
1 How happy is the man
who does not follow the advice of the wicked,
or take the path of sinners,
or join a group of mockers!
2 Instead, his delight is in the LORD's instruction,
and he meditates on it day and night.
3 He is like a tree planted beside streams of water
that bears its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither.
Whatever he does prospers.
4 The wicked are not like this;
instead, they are like chaff that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not survive the judgment,
and sinners will not be in the community of the righteous.
6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to ruin.​
Thank you.
 

Lunitik

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I have stated nothing of the sort, what I have stated is that it is not possible to experience oneness while engaging other people - the very act of engaging another is to cease oneness, there are now two.

You can of course act on the knowledge of oneness within the plurality, please do not mistake my words. I only state that it ceases to be realized, not that it ceases to be known. Almost every word I have committed to this thread is an instance of plurality referring to the singular, but I am not in a meditative state, I am not realizing the oneness while I convey them. Without spiritual practice, I do not believe it is possible to realize this oneness at all, although it is perhaps possible to intellectualize it reasonably.
 

luecy7

Well-Known Member
Messages
892
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Please check out Psalm 1
1 How happy is the man
who does not follow the advice of the wicked,
or take the path of sinners,
or join a group of mockers!
2 Instead, his delight is in the LORD's instruction,
and he meditates on it day and night.
3 He is like a tree planted beside streams of water
that bears its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither.
Whatever he does prospers.
4 The wicked are not like this;
instead, they are like chaff that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not survive the judgment,
and sinners will not be in the community of the righteous.
6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to ruin.
Thank you.
Thank you.

I don't see any mocking here: to do as others do without thinking upon it and conscientiously questioning their instruction. Do you? Note that Jesus conversed and interacted with sinners. I see a polar difference in the use of the word: meditation. I would call that form of meditation, thinking, because to think upon someone's instruction requires thought. Focus perhaps, but it involves using the mind. Activity, like focusing on someone else's instruction is more of a distraction to someone who seeks to not use their mind. When you see the Buddha sitting, you can view it that he is meditating trying to not think upon anything, or meditating to make use of his mind.
 

Lunitik

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Focus perhaps, but it involves using the mind.

This is false, focus is not a function of mind, in fact - for instance in the case of professional athletes - it is often said that the player is not focused, he is thinking too much about what he will do next. There is also the concept of being in the zone, this is often said to include utter non-thought. I would actually state this is at least close to a meditative state in and of itself.

This seems quite a common understanding, it is surprising you have not grasped it.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,863
Reaction score
262
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
Thank you.

I don't see any mocking here: to do as others do without thinking upon it and conscientiously questioning their instruction. Do you? Note that Jesus conversed and interacted with sinners.
Indeed he did. He also went out into the wilderness to fast for forty days (and to be tempted by satan) before looking for disciples and starting his ministry.
I see a polar difference in the use of the word: meditation. I would call that form of meditation, thinking, because to think upon someone's instruction requires thought. Focus perhaps, but it involves using the mind. Activity, like focusing on someone else's instruction is more of a distraction to someone who seeks to not use their mind. When you see the Buddha sitting, you can view it that he is meditating trying to not think upon anything, or meditating to make use of his mind.
Cittavagga: The Mind

excerpt
Whatever an enemy might do to an enemy, or a foe to a foe, the ill-directed mind can do to you even worse.

Whatever a mother, father or other kinsman might do for you, the well-directed mind can do for you even better.​
 

Ciel

in essence
Messages
926
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Oxfordshire uk
........ Mooji is a man not of the mind yet the focus of the light and love flowing from his eyes relays warmth and radiance. It is true when the inner focus ventures through as I also experience through the stillness of mind ...it is love and lives in total acceptance.And there is total oneness while engaging others.

- c -
 

Lunitik

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
1
Points
0
........ Mooji is a man not of the mind yet the focus of the light and love flowing from his eyes relays warmth and radiance. It is true when the inner focus ventures through as I also experience through the stillness of mind ...it is love and lives in total acceptance.And there is total oneness while engaging others.

Yes!

Of course I would dispute whether it is truly oneness when there are two, but this is a function of mind - perhaps with more training it is possible to engage without interrupting oneness, it is just not my experience, I have not confirmed this.

Irrelevant, still beautiful :)
 

Lunitik

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,611
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Whatever an enemy might do to an enemy, or a foe to a foe, the ill-directed mind can do to you even worse.

Whatever a mother, father or other kinsman might do for you, the well-directed mind can do for you even better.​

Love this! Thank you for sharing!
 

luecy7

Well-Known Member
Messages
892
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This is false, focus is not a function of mind, in fact - for instance in the case of professional athletes - it is often said that the player is not focused, he is thinking too much about what he will do next. There is also the concept of being in the zone, this is often said to include utter non-thought. I would actually state this is at least close to a meditative state in and of itself.

This seems quite a common understanding, it is surprising you have not grasped it.
So you seek non-focus. Yes I can see that you prefer a programmed machine that reacts on instinct or programming, and does not take the time, does not take the responsibility, to think and question. Good athletes use their mind quite a bit, both off the field and on the field.
 
Top