|
Post by onehandclapping on Jul 29, 2013 4:12:18 GMT -5
Even before thought there is an experience of "I", though thought names it. "I" before thought is very subtle, often missed, but in its absence in Samadhi, "I" is more palpable. Hmmmm.... Before the thought of I there is an experience of an "I"? Hmmm....... Think you might be stretching here a bit.... How can you know if samadhi is any different than pre thoughts without the reference of self from thoughts? Without thoughts, there wouldn't be a separate self experienced as self is derived from the mind..... The experience would look the same as samadhi if one didn't have any thoughts wouldn't it? Good advice.....even for you...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 29, 2013 4:19:05 GMT -5
If there was no experience of an I prior to the arising of the I-thought, the I-thought would not arise. If thoughts arose without any experiential basis for them at all, our thoughts would be extremely.....random, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Jul 29, 2013 4:38:44 GMT -5
consciousness is a spectrum of various subjective and qualitative experience. gross I, subtle I are just shifts from one bandwidth to another. personal impersonal supra personal transpersonal you name it we have it
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 29, 2013 5:11:09 GMT -5
consciousness is a spectrum of various subjective and qualitative experience. gross I, subtle I are just shifts from one bandwidth to another. personal impersonal supra personal transpersonal you name it we have it Hehe. yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 11:16:47 GMT -5
If there was no experience of an I prior to the arising of the I-thought, the I-thought would not arise. If thoughts arose without any experiential basis for them at all, our thoughts would be extremely.....random, to say the least. Too much reasoning...
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Jul 29, 2013 11:43:22 GMT -5
If there was no experience of an I prior to the arising of the I-thought, the I-thought would not arise. If thoughts arose without any experiential basis for them at all, our thoughts would be extremely.....random, to say the least. I see what you are saying but is it a taught thing where others put the thought into our field of awareness causing the "I" to form or experience prior? Our parents label us and everything else when we are kids making a "self" and everything else. Without that would the self thought really arise? Guess you would have to look at folks raised outside of our egoic society..... I compare it to talking to gorillas. We teach it the "I" concept. It doesn't arrive there on its own. Your take might work for the first people to ever have the "I" thought..... But then again is that "I" being experienced or just an effect of labeling things around them which leads to the dilussion of self?
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 29, 2013 13:07:47 GMT -5
If there was no experience of an I prior to the arising of the I-thought, the I-thought would not arise. If thoughts arose without any experiential basis for them at all, our thoughts would be extremely.....random, to say the least. I see what you are saying but is it a taught thing where others put the thought into our field of awareness causing the "I" to form or experience prior? Our parents label us and everything else when we are kids making a "self" and everything else. Without that would the self thought really arise? Guess you would have to look at folks raised outside of our egoic society..... I compare it to talking to gorillas. We teach it the "I" concept. It doesn't arrive there on its own. Your take might work for the first people to ever have the "I" thought..... But then again is that "I" being experienced or just an effect of labeling things around them which leads to the dilussion of self? www.parentingcounts.org/information/timeline/baby-begins-to-develop-self-awareness-15-24-months/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200907/do-animals-know-who-they-are
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 29, 2013 13:44:27 GMT -5
If there was no experience of an I prior to the arising of the I-thought, the I-thought would not arise. If thoughts arose without any experiential basis for them at all, our thoughts would be extremely.....random, to say the least. Too much reasoning... Did you reason that that was too much reasoning?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 15:57:12 GMT -5
Did you reason that that was too much reasoning? Yes, the attention is still on reason, so it gets used until there's no need for it anymore...
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Jul 29, 2013 17:06:59 GMT -5
trf, is the attention is on reason your way of saying "thinking"?
i noticed that some people used too much thinking analysing and intellectualiIng as some form of rebuke here as if thinking is a bad thing around this part of the world?
why is this so?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 17:59:41 GMT -5
trf, is the attention is on reason your way of saying "thinking"? i noticed that some people used too much thinking analysing and intellectualiIng as some form of rebuke here as if thinking is a bad thing around this part of the world? why is this so? If your goal is to "figure everything out", then there is no problem with thinking :-) if you want to gnosis your nature in its entirety, thinking can be a "problem". There are aspects of your nature that cannot be fathomed with thought, only immersion will do. Functionally, think of your existance like a funnel of awareness....thinking narrows down the "view" considerably.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 18:06:40 GMT -5
trf, is the attention is on reason your way of saying "thinking"? i noticed that some people used too much thinking analysing and intellectualiIng as some form of rebuke here as if thinking is a bad thing around this part of the world? why is this so? If your goal is to "figure everything out", then there is no problem with thinking :-) if you want to gnosis your nature in its entirety, thinking can be a "problem". There are aspects of your nature that cannot be fathomed with thought, only immersion will do. Functionally, think of your existance like a funnel of awareness....thinking narrows down the "view" considerably. If you really want a picture of "your place" in the grand scheme of things, and an operational overview of the working parts so to speak, then you will need to follow the outline of expanding your awareness that has been working for folks for the last 5000 years or more ;-) If after doing so, you want to try and conceptualize the non-conceptual, then have at it, most give up trying though. Some have come close, like Sri Aurobindo though But until you have Gnosissed, it will all be supposition gleaned from others folks inadequate accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 18:34:13 GMT -5
If you are dead set pursuing this intellectually, dive into a tome calked : "The Life Divine" by Sri Aurobindo....its heady stuff, but he is the closest to a western style scientist/philosopher/intellectual that went deep into gnosis of this territory, and reported on it in a western intellectual style....might save you having to cover a lot of intellectual territory on your own...pursuing this intellectually can take up a whole lifetime though.
Might be quicker, if not easier, to go through Patanjali's 6th, 7th, and 8th "Limbs" and gnosis through direct immersion.
6. Maintain concentrated Attention on one thing until it opens into meditation. 7. Maintain Meditation until it opens into Samadhi 8. Open to Samadhi through 6 and 7 as much and as often as possible
This can speed things up considerably, and may only take a few months compared to a lifetime of intellectualism that will never fully "get there" ;-)
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Jul 29, 2013 18:34:38 GMT -5
With the parenting counts one, it's once again with parents teaching the kids... I would be interested in seeing it if there were no outside teaching of a baby aside from giving it food and water..... Then lets see if self comes into play or if the child ends up just living re-actively to it's surroundings... i.e. animal instincts as we call it. With the animal one, is it us projecting a self upon the animal or is it self recognized by the animal? Is that what he sees in the animals or just a projection of his interpretation of their actions? (His delusion projected on them)
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 29, 2013 18:39:39 GMT -5
If you are dead set pursuing this intellectually, dive into a tome calked : "The Life Divine" by Sri Aurobindo....its heady stuff, but he is the closest to a western scientist/philosopher/intellectual that went deep into gnosis of this territory, and reported on it in a western intellectual way....might save you having to cover a lot of intellectual territory on your own...pursuing this intellectually can take up a whole lifetime though. Might be quicker, if not easier, to go through Patanjali's 6th, 7th, and 8th "Limbs" and gnosis through direct immersion. 6. Maintain concentrated Attention on one thing until it opens into meditation. 7. Maintain Meditation until it opens into Samadhi 8. Open to Samadhi through 6 and 7 as much and as often as possible This can speed things up considerably, and may only take a few months compared to a lifetime of intellectualism ;-) How's the progress on permanent samadhi coming along?
|
|