A spiritual person is...

[luecy7]

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.

It seems he held a conversation, which lunitik reports requires thinking, and an absence of spirituality. I can see how the no-mind meditation is tempting. Do this, and you get to see all of the world from your own arm chair...

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.
​

So what about the meditating mind, the mind focused on nothing?

 

[Lunitik]

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.

I do not understand your rationale... the logical conclusion would be ultimate focus, ultimate awareness. Your statements here plainly show you do not play much in the way of sports, for it is all about reaction. I was essentially hinting towards being in the zone at all times, for even the simplest task.

In many of the interviews during the recent finals, many of the players in interviews stated they were avoiding friends and family and all other distractions so they can completely focus on their task.

I really wish you'd at least attempt to comprehend without attachment what I have said to you.

 

[Lunitik]

It seems he held a conversation, which lunitik reports requires thinking, and an absence of spirituality. I can see how the no-mind meditation is tempting. Do this, and you get to see all of the world from your own arm chair...

Certainly, however the mind has been trained based on knowledge of oneness, Buddha's whole teaching is about controlling the mind so it ceases to distract from the present - in this pure awareness of the present, there is enlightenment. When in conversation, you function within the realm of diversity, but the mind recalls the experience of enlightenment.

It is not about seeing the whole world, for the entire world is an illusion, it is about realizing truth. We have the luxury of merely examining another persons discovery and confirming rather than discovering something new.

So what about the meditating mind, the mind focused on nothing?

It will attain.

 

[luecy7]

I do not understand your rationale... the logical conclusion would be ultimate focus, ultimate awareness. Your statements here plainly show you do not play much in the way of sports, for it is all about reaction. I was essentially hinting towards being in the zone at all times, for even the simplest task.

In many of the interviews during the recent finals, many of the players in interviews stated they were avoiding friends and family and all other distractions so they can completely focus on their task.

I really wish you'd at least attempt to comprehend without attachment what I have said to you.

If I play a sport, I focus on my actions, the people, and the sport at hand. If I am conversing with a person, I focus on the conversation and the person. If I am thinking about my relationship with a person, I think about what the person is saying. Focus is simply the scope of where I am investing my mind. What sport do you play, where you think you are not making use of your mind?

 

[Lunitik]

If I play a sport, I focus on my actions, the people, and the sport at hand. If I am conversing with a person, I focus on the conversation and the person. If I am thinking about my relationship with a person, I think about what the person is saying. Focus is simply the scope of where I am investing my mind. What sport do you play, where you think you are not making use of your mind?

Is there thought involved? Are you thinking about how to react, who is best to pass to, what specific rule applies to the current situation? This would all hamper performance. I have been playing soccer since I was 5 years old, I can sense who is on my team based on their actions even if I enter a game late and am not entirely sure intellectually. I do not have to think how to shoot the ball, it is a reaction to where the goalie is, I do not have to think how to best get the ball to a teammate, I react instinctively. I do not have to pay attention to the rules either, they are simply known. I can play hours on end still and only remember those instances where I have broken focus - whether to admire my own skill or anothers, or within conversation. The rest, I am so focused it is as if I am in auto pilot. If I begin to think in any situation though, I am bound to make a mistake, the thought process is simply too slow.

Your conversation scenario is not actually as you perceive it, you are not using the mind when you are listening, you are using your consciousness. If you disagree, next time you are in a conversation in person, merely start thinking of a response while they talk. You will notice that the more you think, the less you hear. You are now seeing what I have said about thought being a distraction to consciousness. Focus is a state of no-mind, you cannot think and focus at the same time, one will unavoidably take precedence. Of course we usually focus on things within the duality, thus focus alone is not meditation. Meditation is a much deeper focus, and it is directed inwardly.

 

[luecy7]

Is there thought involved? Are you thinking about how to react, who is best to pass to, what specific rule applies to the current situation? This would all hamper performance. I have been playing soccer since I was 5 years old, I can sense who is on my team based on their actions even if I enter a game late and am not entirely sure intellectually. I do not have to think how to shoot the ball, it is a reaction to where the goalie is, I do not have to think how to best get the ball to a teammate, I react instinctively. I do not have to pay attention to the rules either, they are simply known. I can play hours on end still and only remember those instances where I have broken focus - whether to admire my own skill or anothers, or within conversation. The rest, I am so focused it is as if I am in auto pilot. If I begin to think in any situation though, I am bound to make a mistake, the thought process is simply too slow.

It looks like my every word on this thread was correct: autopilot. Which part of the game of soccer, or aspect of yourself in the game, do you call being spiritual?

It think you should practice orienteering:
Orienteering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your conversation scenario is not actually as you perceive it, you are not using the mind when you are listening, you are using your consciousness. If you disagree, next time you are in a conversation in person, merely start thinking of a response while they talk. You will notice that the more you think, the less you hear. You are now seeing what I have said about thought being a distraction to consciousness. Focus is a state of no-mind, you cannot think and focus at the same time, one will unavoidably take precedence. Of course we usually focus on things within the duality, thus focus alone is not meditation. Meditation is a much deeper focus, and it is directed inwardly.

All you are contending with is the amount of activity that you can handle. The bigger issue is when you speak or act, what have you prepared your speech or action from?

 

[Lunitik]

It looks like my every word on this thread was correct: autopilot. Which part of the game of soccer, or aspect of yourself in the game, do you call being spiritual?

Except it is also complete and undivided awareness, it is because of this that little is retained in memory and yet it is all retained in reality for otherwise how have I improved? Every action you make can be spiritual, but it is only when there is no division between object and subject, when full awareness is on the act alone.

Why do you view this notion of autopilot as such a negative thing? Why is being in the zone something which you condemn so strongly?

It think you should practice orienteering:
Orienteering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

I have done scavenger hunts, which is essentially the same thing... I suppose the idea you are conveying is that thought is necessary. I do not debate this, I only say that this results in less than peak performance.

All you are contending with is the amount of activity that you can handle. The bigger issue is when you speak or act, what have you prepared your speech or action from?

Why the necessity to prepare? If you truly analyze how conversation is performed, you will know there is no preparation at all. My reply, my action is performed through the conscious, there is no thought involved unless it is necessary.

 

[luecy7]

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.

Do you like it when someone else, especially someone who is a part of your life, takes the time to think your words through?

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.

It sounds like you try to bounce between extreme states.

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.

Whereas, I have stated that it is impossible to experience oneness with someone without interacting with them.

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.

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

Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, did not speak English. It looks to me like you have aligned your self with an English dictionary instead of what Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, said about faith.

If Buddha said, "Have faith in me", and he knew who he was, then why do you use the word 'faith' differently? So tell me: Do you like it when someone has faith in you? If someone has faith in you, would you prefer it to be faith in your brain, body, soul, or spirit? Would you prefer others to have faith in what they perceive from you, or in what they do not perceive from you?

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.

Experience. It takes at least two to be loving. Not that each has to be loving, but that loving a collection of atoms is... selfish.

 

[seattlegal]

Poem – The centipede
by Mrs Edmund Craster (d. 1874)


A centipede was happy quite,
Until a toad in fun
Said ‘Pray which leg moves after which ?
This raised her doubts to such a pitch
She fell exhausted in a ditch,
Not knowing how to run.

While lying in this plight,
A ray of sunshine caught her sight;
She dwelt upon its beauties long,
Till breaking into happy song,
Unthinking she began to run,
And quite forgot the croakers fun.

 

[luecy7]

Poem – The centipede
by Mrs Edmund Craster (d. 1874)


A centipede was happy quite,
Until a toad in fun
Said ‘Pray which leg moves after which ?
This raised her doubts to such a pitch
She fell exhausted in a ditch,
Not knowing how to run.

While lying in this plight,
A ray of sunshine caught her sight;
She dwelt upon its beauties long,
Till breaking into happy song,
Unthinking she began to run,
And quite forgot the croakers fun.

Which of them were loving? Spiritual?

 

[seattlegal]

It seems he held a conversation, which lunitik reports requires thinking, and an absence of spirituality. I can see how the no-mind meditation is tempting. Do this, and you get to see all of the world from your own arm chair...

So what about the meditating mind, the mind focused on nothing?

Satipatthana Sutta: The Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness

 

[Lunitik]

Do you like it when someone else, especially someone who is a part of your life, takes the time to think your words through?

Well no, they begin to possess my words and they cease to be my words at all.

It sounds like you try to bounce between extreme states.

Of course this is how it would seem to you, there is nothing extreme about anything I have been saying though, it is all seamless.

Whereas, I have stated that it is impossible to experience oneness with someone without interacting with them.

I would enjoy hearing how you can rationalize dual thinking as a way to experience oneness, it would be quite interesting. In reality, to experience oneness with another, both would be completely silent and share meditative vibes only.

Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, did not speak English. It looks to me like you have aligned your self with an English dictionary instead of what Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, said about faith.

"blessed is the one that has not seen, and still believes"... this is faith, taking something as fact without knowing it to be so.

If Buddha said, "Have faith in me", and he knew who he was, then why do you use the word 'faith' differently? So tell me: Do you like it when someone has faith in you? If someone has faith in you, would you prefer it to be faith in your brain, body, soul, or spirit? Would you prefer others to have faith in what they perceive from you, or in what they do not perceive from you?

If Buddha expected faith without confirmation, I would not respect his words and likely wouldn't have studied him as much. How others perceive me is irrelevant, it does not matter whether they have faith in me, it serves no purpose at all. In fact, if they have faith in me, they are putting some kind of responsibility on me, this I would certainly not enjoy at all.

Experience. It takes at least two to be loving. Not that each has to be loving, but that loving a collection of atoms is... selfish.

This is your experience, so it is certainly true. You are of dual mind, so you think that lover and loved must be separate. It is possible for there to be only love, no object or subject at all, just the love. This would be true oneness, it is a shame you have not experienced it.

 

[shoel]

What do you mean by Spiritualist in Buddhism?

 

[luecy7]

Satipatthana Sutta: The Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness

Do you see an answer there? So what is the mindfulness of a person who meditates, to contemplate upon ... nothing? Nothing. What is the mindfulness of a person who meditates, to have non-existent contemplation? Non-existent.

 

[Lunitik]

What do you mean by Spiritualist in Buddhism?

The entire point of Buddhism is realizing the spirit.

In Christian thought I would correlate it with partaking in the Holy Spirit, except it is more experiential rather than theoretical.

 

[Lunitik]

Do you see an answer there? So what is the mindfulness of a person who meditates, to contemplate upon ... nothing? Nothing. What is the mindfulness of a person who meditates, to have non-existent contemplation? Non-existent.

Right mindfulness is not the same as right concentration.

You can be rightly minded during meditation when thought intervenes, this is an effective way of returning to a state of concentration.

 

[luecy7]

Well no, they begin to possess my words and they cease to be my words at all.

You wish people to listen to you, and follow, but to not think? Do you likewise listen to people, and follow, but not think? Will you be listening to my words, and following, without thinking? Recall the golden rule.

I would enjoy hearing how you can rationalize dual thinking as a way to experience oneness, it would be quite interesting. In reality, to experience oneness with another, both would be completely silent and share meditative vibes only.

A person can make a vibe, communicate a vibe, and sense a vibe. If you can each make vibes, communicate vibes, and sense vibes together, then you can be like one person that senses vibes, communicates vibes, and senses vibes. In you are making, communicating, and sensing vibes from each other, then you are more like one, than when you mentally masturbate alone.

"blessed is the one that has not seen, and still believes"... this is faith, taking something as fact without knowing it to be so.

Yes and no. Faith is in a person. If a person says see, then see. If a person says believe them although you haven't seen, then you can believe them although you haven't seen. I submit that you are unable to see whether someone is honest as you meditate, so there is a presence there you can't confirm no matter how hard you meditate.

If Buddha expected faith without confirmation, I would not respect his words and likely wouldn't have studied him as much. How others perceive me is irrelevant, it does not matter whether they have faith in me, it serves no purpose at all. In fact, if they have faith in me, they are putting some kind of responsibility on me, this I would certainly not enjoy at all.

Your feelings towards responsibility are noted, and they do match what I said early on in this thread, about a person who does not take responsibility.

This is your experience, so it is certainly true. You are of dual mind, so you think that lover and loved must be separate. It is possible for there to be only love, no object or subject at all, just the love. This would be true oneness, it is a shame you have not experienced it.

It is a shame you think you know and state what someone else has experience with. There is not an object in loving someone else, unless you see someone else as an object. There are at least two subjects, yourself and another.

 

[luecy7]

Right mindfulness is not the same as right concentration.

You can be rightly minded during meditation when thought intervenes, this is an effective way of returning to a state of concentration.

When a thought intervenes, you have a choice of whether or not to listen, to hear and think upon it. If you don't listen, to hear and think upon the thoughts that come your way, then you are like the mindfulness of a person with headphones on to keep your mind silent. Or the mindfulness of a person who hears their spouse and says, "yes dear" without processing what was said. The mindfulness of a house where the porch lights may be on, but none were home.

 

[Lunitik]

You wish people to listen to you, and follow, but to not think? Do you likewise listen to people, and follow, but not think? Will you be listening to my words, and following, without thinking? Recall the golden rule.

Certainly, since I do not wish you to continuously make my words mean something different based on your own experiences. When you change the meaning it ceases to be my statement, you are essentially talking to yourself using my words.

A person can make a vibe, communicate a vibe, and sense a vibe. If you can each make vibes, communicate vibes, and sense vibes together, then you can be like one person that senses vibes, communicates vibes, and senses vibes. In you are making, communicating, and sensing vibes from each other, then you are more like one, than when you mentally masturbate alone.

"More like one"? How can there be various degrees of unity? You are either one or you are not.

Yes and no. Faith is in a person. If a person says see, then see. If a person says believe them although you haven't seen, then you can believe them although you haven't seen. I submit that you are unable to see whether someone is honest as you meditate, so there is a presence there you can't confirm no matter how hard you meditate.

No, I cannot believe when I haven't seen. I meditate to see whether they are correct, I take myself to the place they describe and thus realize the truth of their statement.

Your feelings towards responsibility are noted, and they do match what I said early on in this thread, about a person who does not take responsibility.

It is quite normal for spiritual people to renounce responsibility, what is your point here?

It is a shame you think you know and state what someone else has experience with. There is not an object in loving someone else, unless you see someone else as an object. There are at least two subjects, yourself and another.

A subject acts on an object, I suggest you look into the meanings of these words and how they differ. Both are subjects acting on an object, but they are also both objects being acted upon.

It is possible to remove subject and object, for there to only be love between the two, but this is normally most inherent during sex.

 

[luecy7]

Certainly, since I do not wish you to continuously make my words mean something different based on your own experiences. When you change the meaning it ceases to be my statement, you are essentially talking to yourself using my words.

False.

"More like one"? How can there be various degrees of unity? You are either one or you are not.

By not being an extremist or control freak.

No, I cannot believe when I haven't seen. I meditate to see whether they are correct, I take myself to the place they describe and thus realize the truth of their statement.

If someone tells you that a drug is bad for you, and will kill you, do you have to meditate to believe them? If one person says something is true, and another says it is false, you think meditation provides you the answer?

It is quite normal for spiritual people to renounce responsibility, what is your point here?

It is quite normal for a criminal to renounce responsibility.

A subject acts on an object, I suggest you look into the meanings of these words and how they differ. Both are subjects acting on an object, but they are also both objects being acted upon.

It seems you are the dualist. How do you love a rock? How do you have faith in a rock? How are you honest with a rock? A rock is an object, but a rock does not care, does not have a will, and it is not counting on whether you lied or not. It has no power, no perception, whereas a person does. People may interact through objects, but they interact with each other. If someone throws a rock at you, it is not the rock that is hating you. People, subjects, interact through objects.