|
Post by onehandclapping on Jul 30, 2013 17:00:11 GMT -5
I don't know your experience, but its easy to confuse the word/thought and idea of "I" with the actual experience of "I" that the word and the idea point toward....The word/thought/idea of "I" does not arise before thought, because it is a thought, but that which the word/idea/thought points to, which is your experience of individuated Beingness, is there whether thoughts are occurring or not. See for your self, sit with a still silent mind, and you can still feel yourself existing, observing. But even this experience of your "Beingness" (what Niz called the 'I Am') that is there even in silent mind, is still not the experience of your undifferentiated self, and is not Samadhi. I agree that some confuse the two but that's not the case here.... For something to be an experience there has to be a experience-er. For there to be an experience-er there has to be self referential thoughts that create a subject and objects outside of that subject. For forms who do not have thoughts, experience of the world may look (to a mind that has experienced self referential thoughts) like they experience an individuated Beingness, but I contest that maybe there is no individual felt because separation was never there. To us, it may look like an individual, but to them it is constant Samadhi. We see and label it experience......where it's just ____________. I also don't know if you can totally unlearn the feeling of your Beingness. Sure you can visit it during Samadhi but a permanent state seems ludicrous IMO. You could give yourself a lobotomy to make sure the brain doesn't work anymore to accomplish Samadhi as well, but I'll stick with the feeling of Beingness...... Sit quietly and comfortably, and FEEL yourself existing without thoughts....your "I"ness experience is more than just word thoughts, your "I"ness, or I am-ness, is always there silently in the background of all thoughts, first you become sensitive to your absorption in thoughts and realize that these thoughts that you thought were you are not you, and that the "I" that you thought was those thoughts that you were immersed in does not exist. But you have not neti neti-ed enough, because you have not looked at the witness that silently observed that you are not your thoughts....the perspective of "I" is still there, even when word thoughts and ideas are not occurring. When Niz talks about transcending the I Am, he is talking about Samadhi, and when I am talking about Samadhi, I am talking about the dropping away of the silent sense of Being that is there observing your thoughts and ideas when you are not absorbed in thoughts and ideas. I get what you trying to point towards Steve but I still come back to why? Why strive towards transcending the sense of Beingness/I AM? You seem to believe that Samadhi is something better than THIS. I'm not a Niz fanatic but I'm not so sure that Niz was talking about Samadhi at least by your description. Transcending the I AM by how I've read him means recognizing (a non-mental recognition) you are That, which recognizes the awareness, that recognizes the thoughts, that create the illusion of a self. But you could read my words and say they are pointing towards the same thing yours do I reckon.... . . . No, not as long as there is still an observer to you, even if it is a mentally silent observer that is your experience of Beingness that is there behind thoughts.
Behind thoughts and ideas is your Beingness, behind Beingness there is only absorption into the undifferentiation of _______.
Look and see what is looking at thoughts....this is the "I"....when the "I" that silently looks goes away, when that perspective goes away and is merged with the undifferentiated, this is Samadhi. Samadhi cannot be made to happen, nor is it something that you can do, like having a still mind, Samadhi is the releasing of a perspective that happens when conditions are right, you can create the conditions where Samadhi easily and frequently happens, but you cannot create Samadhi.
If Samadhi is something that you can't make happen then why are you promoting it so much? You appear to think that this is some state everyone should "work" towards.....
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Jul 30, 2013 17:04:07 GMT -5
okay tnx. it seems that you have considered tmt as an obstacle to something. tmt that leads to ciircular reasoning is of course undesirable as well as if you are seeking peace of mind. so i agree with you but not absolutely. but otoh, a WTO philosophy is entertaining to say the least. Obstacle? ... how did you derive that? WTO? words you use like seeking, diminishing returns. these are words that imply a goal. WTO- WELL-THOUGHT OUT
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 30, 2013 17:08:29 GMT -5
Obstacle? ... how did you derive that? WTO? words you use like seeking, diminishing returns. these are words that imply a goal. WTO- WELL-THOUGHT OUT Yes, abstotootely! A WTO philosophy is very entertaining indeed! I agree that where there is a seeker there is, by definition, a goal, but still, this notion of an obstacle isn't mine.
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Jul 30, 2013 17:27:36 GMT -5
words you use like seeking, diminishing returns. these are words that imply a goal. WTO- WELL-THOUGHT OUT Yes, abstotootely! A WTO philosophy is very entertaining indeed! I agree that where there is a seeker there is, by definition, a goal, but still, this notion of an obstacle isn't mine. perhaps we are talking in general about the bad effects of incessant thinking. genrally speaking imo the mind of a modren man suffers adhd. hehe
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 30, 2013 17:29:25 GMT -5
Yes, abstotootely! A WTO philosophy is very entertaining indeed! I agree that where there is a seeker there is, by definition, a goal, but still, this notion of an obstacle isn't mine. perhaps we are talking in general about the bad effects of incessant thinking. genrally speaking imo the mind of a modren man suffers adhd. hehe Well, I can say from personal experience, that when this was called to my attention, it made a big difference in day-to-day experience. <TMT> The idea of "modern man" ... just ..... might .........be, TMT! </TMT>
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Jul 30, 2013 20:30:47 GMT -5
The perceiver IS, the perceived IS a becoming... Saying that they are of the same substance is just a way of differentiating even though there aren't 2 things there... there is only one substance. the difference between the perceiver and the perceived is that the perceived is the same substance only that it moves to become the percept. so the is refers to the stuff and the becoming refers to its movement whether by reflection or resonance or vibration. by virtue of oneness and unseparateenss of the two, the perceiver and perceived is an interaction in itself whether one feels that its is a background screen for the percepts only. for all we know it indirectly uses ego as its form of control?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 22:20:09 GMT -5
For something to be an experience there has to be a experience-er. Actually, in Relative Samadhi, there is a paradox of experience occurring in the complete absence of an experiencer. If you read the first few posts that I made in the Strange Woo thread I made a commentary on this..For there to be an experience-er there has to be self referential thoughts that create a subject and objects outside of that subject. For forms who do not have thoughts, experience of the world may look (to a mind that has experienced self referential thoughts) like they experience an individuated Beingness, but I contest that maybe there is no individual felt because separation was never there. YesTo us, it may look like an individual, but to them it is constant Samadhi. We see and label it experience......where it's just ____________. Who is "them"?I also don't know if you can totally unlearn the feeling of your Beingness. Sure you can visit it during Samadhi but a permanent state seems ludicrous IMO. I have no experience of "unlearning" the experience of Beingness, but there is an experience of Beingness disappearing. The experience of Beingness is core illusion that is created by a "perspective", when that perspective is gone, the experience of Beingness goes with it....Beingness is an experience that only appears relative to a kind of perspective that is not there in the undifferentiation of Samadhi.You could give yourself a lobotomy to make sure the brain doesn't work anymore to accomplish Samadhi as well, but I'll stick with the feeling of Beingness...... No, Samadhi has an aspect of alertness to it that drugs and or a lobotomy cannot replicate. The later two reduce alertness and conciousness, Samadhi intensifies and expands these into a limitless boundlessness with no relativity in its infinite undifferentiation Sit quietly and comfortably, and FEEL yourself existing without thoughts....your "I"ness experience is more than just word thoughts, your "I"ness, or I am-ness, is always there silently in the background of all thoughts, first you become sensitive to your absorption in thoughts and realize that these thoughts that you thought were you are not you, and that the "I" that you thought was those thoughts that you were immersed in does not exist. But you have not neti neti-ed enough, because you have not looked at the witness that silently observed that you are not your thoughts....the perspective of "I" is still there, even when word thoughts and ideas are not occurring. When Niz talks about transcending the I Am, he is talking about Samadhi, and when I am talking about Samadhi, I am talking about the dropping away of the silent sense of Being that is there observing your thoughts and ideas when you are not absorbed in thoughts and ideas. I get what you trying to point towards Steve but I still come back to why? Why strive towards transcending the sense of Beingness/I AM? You seem to believe that Samadhi is something better than THIS. Why wake up everyday? Samadhi is an opening to your greater self, the limitless undifferentiation of yourself, why stay in the narrower experience of Beingness and Self all the time? Said another way, why center yourself continuously in an aspect of yourself that is a wave, when you can center yourself in the aspect of your self that contains the infinate?
Its all perfect either way, nothing is lost or gained, at some point maybe it's just a choice of where you want to have a sit in perfection...
I'm not a Niz fanatic but I'm not so sure that Niz was talking about Samadhi at least by your description. Transcending the I AM by how I've read him means recognizing (a non-mental recognition) you are That, which recognizes the awareness, that recognizes the thoughts, that create the illusion of a self. No my friend, they are all talking about Samadhi, there is nothing that is recognized while merged with the infinite, no recognition of any mind, no differentiated recognizer. We may be quibbling over soma tics here though...but the best I got is that all differentiation goes away....lately, the experience of mind movement is there in Samadhi, its quite an odd phenomena actually: Experiencing both the mind movement and my own sense of Beingness as just another phenomena that is part of an undifferentiated whole....its not dissappearing in what the Zen guys call "relative" Samadhi anymore, but its just another phenomena occurring somehow impossibly absent of differentiation or "self". What was seen as "me" is just another aspect of an undifferentiated whole...quite odd to see one's selfness as a part of the whole with this kind of absolute subjectivity, and yet, not odd at all.But you could read my words and say they are pointing towards the same thing yours do I reckon.... [/font][/quote]If Samadhi is something that you can't make happen then why are you promoting it so much? You appear to think that this is some state everyone should "work" towards..... [/quote] Humans, all mammals really, seem to have a kind of social empathy that expresses as a willing to to help others out of a trap, as evidenced in the study posted in the other section of the forum....I guess I am no different, I've seen the kind of "trap" that the perspective of Beingness creates...and just as you have a kind of instinctual movement toward showing mind/thought centered folks into the openness of just Being in THIS, so to there seems to be an instinctual movement toward showing folks to the openness of Samadhi. But that movement seems to be winding down to less proselytizing, and more of just answering questions when asked....I'm beginning to appreciate Ramana and others just sharing silence though, even when asked...There is not really much for me to do, and nothing that I can do for 'you', and even if there is, Silence is always the best teacher ;-)The universe is Samadhi, no need for anyone to open up into it.
Having said all that, to clarify, one cannot gain Samadhi, but one can follow very simple practices where they can come to a place where Samadhi takes them in...and Samadhi is always there to take you in. The practices are just a method to undo the kung fu grip that folks have on their current perspective
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 30, 2013 22:27:49 GMT -5
For something to be an experience there has to be a experience-er. Actually, in Relative Samadhi, there is a paradox of experience occurring in the complete absence of an experiencer. If you read the first few posts that I made in the Strange Woo thread I made a commentary on this..For there to be an experience-er there has to be self referential thoughts that create a subject and objects outside of that subject. For forms who do not have thoughts, experience of the world may look (to a mind that has experienced self referential thoughts) like they experience an individuated Beingness, but I contest that maybe there is no individual felt because separation was never there. YesTo us, it may look like an individual, but to them it is constant Samadhi. We see and label it experience......where it's just ____________. Who is "them"?I also don't know if you can totally unlearn the feeling of your Beingness. Sure you can visit it during Samadhi but a permanent state seems ludicrous IMO. I have no experience of "unlearning" the experience of Beingness, but there is an experience of Beingness disappearing. The experience of Beingness is core illusion that is created by a "perspective", when that perspective is gone, the experience of Beingness goes with it....Beingness is an experience that only appears relative to a kind of perspective that is not there in the undifferentiation of Samadhi.You could give yourself a lobotomy to make sure the brain doesn't work anymore to accomplish Samadhi as well, but I'll stick with the feeling of Beingness...... No, Samadhi has an aspect of alertness to it that drugs and or a lobotomy cannot replicate. The later two reduce alertness and conciousness, Samadhi intensifies and expands these into a limitless boundlessness with no relativity in its infinite undifferentiation I get what you trying to point towards Steve but I still come back to why? Why strive towards transcending the sense of Beingness/I AM? You seem to believe that Samadhi is something better than THIS. Why wake up everyday? Samadhi is an opening to your greater self, the limitless undifferentiation of yourself, why stay in the narrower experience of Beingness and Self all the time? Said another way, why center yourself continuously in an aspect of yourself that is a wave, when you can center yourself in the aspect of your self that contains the infinate?
Its all perfect either way, nothing is lost or gained, at some point maybe it's just a choice of where you want to have a sit in perfection...
I'm not a Niz fanatic but I'm not so sure that Niz was talking about Samadhi at least by your description. Transcending the I AM by how I've read him means recognizing (a non-mental recognition) you are That, which recognizes the awareness, that recognizes the thoughts, that create the illusion of a self. No my friend, they are all talking about Samadhi, there is nothing that is recognized while merged with the infinite, no recognition of any mind, no differentiated recognizer. We may be quibbling over soma tics here though...but the best I got is that all differentiation goes away....lately, the experience of mind movement is there in Samadhi, its quite an odd phenomena actually: Experiencing both the mind movement and my own sense of Beingness as just another phenomena that is part of an undifferentiated whole....its not dissappearing in what the Zen guys call "relative" Samadhi anymore, but its just another phenomena occurring somehow impossibly absent of differentiation or "self". What was seen as "me" is just another aspect of an undifferentiated whole...quite odd to see one's selfness as a part of the whole with this kind of absolute subjectivity, and yet, not odd at all.But you could read my words and say they are pointing towards the same thing yours do I reckon.... If Samadhi is something that you can't make happen then why are you promoting it so much? You appear to think that this is some state everyone should "work" towards..... Humans, all mammals really, seem to have a kind of social empathy that expresses as a willing to to help others out of a trap, as evidenced in the study posted in the other section of the forum....I guess I am no different, I've seen the kind of "trap" that the perspective of Beingness creates...and just as you have a kind of instinctual movement toward showing mind/thought centered folks into the openness of just Being in THIS, so to there seems to be an instinctual movement toward showing folks to the openness of Samadhi. But that movement seems to be winding down to less proselytizing to more of an answering of questions when asked....I'm beginning to appreciate Ramana and others just sharing silence though, even when asked.The universe is Samadhi, no need for anyone to open up into it.
Having said all that, to clarify, one cannot gain Samadhi, but one can follow very simple practices where they can come to a place where Samadhi takes them in when one is willing to let go of "self" and merge into the infinite undifferentiation of self...and Samadhi is always there to take you in. The practices are just a method to undo the kung fu grip that folks have on their current perspective that creates the illusion of a differentiated self and phenomena.Do you see other people as trapped?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 22:34:26 GMT -5
Humans, all mammals really, seem to have a kind of social empathy that expresses as a willing to to help others out of a trap, as evidenced in the study posted in the other section of the forum....I guess I am no different, I've seen the kind of "trap" that the perspective of Beingness creates...and just as you have a kind of instinctual movement toward showing mind/thought centered folks into the openness of just Being in THIS, so to there seems to be an instinctual movement toward showing folks to the openness of Samadhi. But that movement seems to be winding down to less proselytizing to more of an answering of questions when asked....I'm beginning to appreciate Ramana and others just sharing silence though, even when asked.The universe is Samadhi, no need for anyone to open up into it.
Having said all that, to clarify, one cannot gain Samadhi, but one can follow very simple practices where they can come to a place where Samadhi takes them in when one is willing to let go of "self" and merge into the infinite undifferentiation of self...and Samadhi is always there to take you in. The practices are just a method to undo the kung fu grip that folks have on their current perspective that creates the illusion of a differentiated self and phenomena. Do you see other people as trapped? No And I don't see "other people" right now :-) Ask me again in another iteration of this moment and the answer may be different ;-) "Trap" is not the best word for every conversation, but there is a "narrowness" aspect to the experience of Beingness, and a still further "narrowness" aspect to absorption in the Mind Movement of the illusion of an individual.
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Jul 30, 2013 22:53:43 GMT -5
nope, the universe is satori God is samadhi
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 31, 2013 0:26:49 GMT -5
nope, the universe is satori God is samadhi Nope, you are the universal satori samadhi and I am God!
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Jul 31, 2013 14:40:33 GMT -5
For something to be an experience there has to be a experience-er. Actually, in Relative Samadhi, there is a paradox of experience occurring in the complete absence of an experiencer. If you read the first few posts that I made in the Strange Woo thread I made a commentary on this..hmmmm..... I guess you could call it a paradox of experience but maybe a better word instead of experience would be a happening. A happening happens during relative samadhi which becomes an experience once the experiencer returns. To us, it may look like an individual, but to them it is constant Samadhi. We see and label it experience......where it's just ____________. Who is "them"?Forms that do not have thoughts ever that form into referential selves. I also don't know if you can totally unlearn the feeling of your Beingness. Sure you can visit it during Samadhi but a permanent state seems ludicrous IMO. I have no experience of "unlearning" the experience of Beingness, but there is an experience of Beingness disappearing. The experience of Beingness is core illusion that is created by a "perspective", when that perspective is gone, the experience of Beingness goes with it....Beingness is an experience that only appears relative to a kind of perspective that is not there in the undifferentiation of Samadhi. I was referring to having your mind forget that it was a self entirely. It's been programed to communicate and work as a self referential machine. You could give yourself a lobotomy to make sure the brain doesn't work anymore to accomplish Samadhi as well, but I'll stick with the feeling of Beingness...... No, Samadhi has an aspect of alertness to it that drugs and or a lobotomy cannot replicate. The later two reduce alertness and conciousness, Samadhi intensifies and expands these into a limitless boundlessness with no relativity in its infinite undifferentiation I will have to go find it but you have said something very different about Samadhi before. I seem to remember it being some line of Samadhi leads to a loss of the self and the awareness of thoughts. I get what you trying to point towards Steve but I still come back to why? Why strive towards transcending the sense of Beingness/I AM? You seem to believe that Samadhi is something better than THIS. Why wake up everyday? Samadhi is an opening to your greater self, the limitless undifferentiation of yourself, why stay in the narrower experience of Beingness and Self all the time? Said another way, why center yourself continuously in an aspect of yourself that is a wave, when you can center yourself in the aspect of your self that contains the infinate?
Its all perfect either way, nothing is lost or gained, at some point maybe it's just a choice of where you want to have a sit in perfection...
This really sounds like you think there is something better than this.... I don't experience a narrower experience of Beingness. That is an idea about what is that doesn't exist. It only exists with referential self thoughts. You feel a more open-ness through self..... in reality it always feels open. "Choice of where you want to sit"..... Yeah that doesn't make any sense if it's all perfect. There is nothing better or worse and no you to sit anywhere. It's just perfection. I'm not a Niz fanatic but I'm not so sure that Niz was talking about Samadhi at least by your description. Transcending the I AM by how I've read him means recognizing (a non-mental recognition) you are That, which recognizes the awareness, that recognizes the thoughts, that create the illusion of a self. No my friend, they are all talking about Samadhi, there is nothing that is recognized while merged with the infinite, no recognition of any mind, no differentiated recognizer. We may be quibbling over soma tics here though...but the best I got is that all differentiation goes away....lately, the experience of mind movement is there in Samadhi, its quite an odd phenomena actually: Experiencing both the mind movement and my own sense of Beingness as just another phenomena that is part of an undifferentiated whole....its not dissappearing in what the Zen guys call "relative" Samadhi anymore, but its just another phenomena occurring somehow impossibly absent of differentiation or "self". What was seen as "me" is just another aspect of an undifferentiated whole...quite odd to see one's selfness as a part of the whole with this kind of absolute subjectivity, and yet, not odd at all.We will have to agree to disagree on the Niz thing. It sounds like you are "experiencing" a lot of settling. Like you haven't come to full rest yet. Not fully at ease with the simplicity and ordinariness of life. That's just my opinion from reading and interpreting your words through my mind and it's bias so don't take it as an attack.... If Samadhi is something that you can't make happen then why are you promoting it so much? You appear to think that this is some state everyone should "work" towards..... Humans, all mammals really, seem to have a kind of social empathy that expresses as a willing to to help others out of a trap, as evidenced in the study posted in the other section of the forum....I guess I am no different, I've seen the kind of "trap" that the perspective of Beingness creates...and just as you have a kind of instinctual movement toward showing mind/thought centered folks into the openness of just Being in THIS, so to there seems to be an instinctual movement toward showing folks to the openness of Samadhi. But that movement seems to be winding down to less proselytizing, and more of just answering questions when asked....I'm beginning to appreciate Ramana and others just sharing silence though, even when asked...There is not really much for me to do, and nothing that I can do for 'you', and even if there is, Silence is always the best teacher ;-) The old index finger works well indeed! The universe is Samadhi, no need for anyone to open up into it.
Having said all that, to clarify, one cannot gain Samadhi, but one can follow very simple practices where they can come to a place where Samadhi takes them in...and Samadhi is always there to take you in. The practices are just a method to undo the kung fu grip that folks have on their current perspective A kung fu grip that you might be projecting.... just saying...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 15:28:48 GMT -5
hmmmm..... I guess you could call it a paradox of experience but maybe a better word instead of experience would be a happening. A happening happens during relative samadhi which becomes an experience once the experiencer returns. YESForms that do not have thoughts ever that form into referential selves. Haha, with much love, I can't go into that rabbit whole :-)I was referring to having your mind forget that it was a self entirely. It's been programed to communicate and work as a self referential machine. I don't know, don't have any personal reference point of experience to comment, but the accounts of guys like Ramana seem to indicate that at some point, mind stops happening when one remains in Samadhi and the habitual movement of mind has run its course, but whether mind ever loses self referentiality while still existing? I dunno, and frankly, am not really interested in "researching" it.
I will say that the more time I spend in Samadhi, the more my mind percieves all THIS as a kind of Cymatics, or like one of those moving Ferrofluid sculptures...
Watch the bottom vid with the volume turned down and you can kinda get what I mean.
This really sounds like you think there is something better than this.... I don't experience a narrower experience of Beingness. That is an idea about what is that doesn't exist. It only exists with referential self thoughts. You feel a more open-ness through self..... in reality it always feels open. "Choice of where you want to sit"..... Yeah that doesn't make any sense if it's all perfect. There is nothing better or worse and no you to sit anywhere. It's just perfection. Okay :-)[/quote]We will have to agree to disagree on the Niz thing. It sounds like you are "experiencing" a lot of settling. Like you haven't come to full rest yet. Not fully at ease with the simplicity and ordinariness of life. That's just my opinion from reading and interpreting your words through my mind and it's bias so don't take it as an attack.... I dunno, it is whatever it is... [/quote]The old index finger works well indeed! [/quote]A kung fu grip that you might be projecting.... just saying... Probably :-)[/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 15:29:12 GMT -5
The perceiver IS, the perceived IS a becoming... Saying that they are of the same substance is just a way of differentiating even though there aren't 2 things there... there is only one substance. the difference between the perceiver and the perceived is that the perceived is the same substance only that it moves to become the percept. so the is refers to the stuff and the becoming refers to its movement whether by reflection or resonance or vibration. by virtue of oneness and unseparateenss of the two, the perceiver and perceived is an interaction in itself whether one feels that its is a background screen for the percepts only. for all we know it indirectly uses ego as its form of control? What uses ego to control what...?
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Jul 31, 2013 18:07:16 GMT -5
there is only one substance. the difference between the perceiver and the perceived is that the perceived is the same substance only that it moves to become the percept. so the is refers to the stuff and the becoming refers to its movement whether by reflection or resonance or vibration. by virtue of oneness and unseparateenss of the two, the perceiver and perceived is an interaction in itself whether one feels that its is a background screen for the percepts only. for all we know it indirectly uses ego as its form of control? What uses ego to control what...? "I" is a frame of reference by the mind to navigate the world and to flick and direct the finger at will or consciously
|
|