|
Post by Reefs on Sept 19, 2013 0:11:54 GMT -5
Haha....sorry bout that SQ. ya have to admit, that it was a very Silver-esque quote though :-) I was stuck in massive traffic - I wasn't driving, passenger- and in frustrated boredom, I checked the forum via the mobile app. I didn't even see your first post, for some reason, just the first reply, which is what I replied to, and it was very off the cuff comment, because in that moment I realized WTF, there's this glorious moon above the congested highway, why do I have my phone out?? Bingo!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 19, 2013 0:17:58 GMT -5
If we're to talk about samadhi as extreme mental silence, the obvious answer is that most are unable to be that still and so the discussion naturally evolves into why that is. The other piece is that Samadhi is a doorway to clarity or a facilitator of realization and not some sort of goal in and of itself. I would not describe Samadhi as extreme mental silence, or talk about it that way, as thats not how the experience appears to me. as to the rest, I think folks have gotten it all backwards....A moment of Samadhi facitlitates realization, but realization is the facilitator, not the end game...the "end game" is moving deeper into Samadhi and becoming stable in it, meaning, that Samadhi becomes to new normal state in almost a kind of evolution of individuated conciousness that disapears, or open into God, or limitlessly unified conciousness. A moment of Samadhi reveals realization, but realization is just the facilitator of going the rest of the way into the opening of conciousness. Can you do calculus when you are in samadhi? You describe Samadhi as something that does come and go. You say first there's samadhi and then a realization. So does that mean that every time you enter into samadhi you have a realization?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 1:02:25 GMT -5
I would not describe Samadhi as extreme mental silence, or talk about it that way, as thats not how the experience appears to me. as to the rest, I think folks have gotten it all backwards....A moment of Samadhi facitlitates realization, but realization is the facilitator, not the end game...the "end game" is moving deeper into Samadhi and becoming stable in it, meaning, that Samadhi becomes to new normal state in almost a kind of evolution of individuated conciousness that disapears, or open into God, or limitlessly unified conciousness. A moment of Samadhi reveals realization, but realization is just the facilitator of going the rest of the way into the opening of conciousness. Can you do calculus when you are in samadhi? You describe Samadhi as something that does come and go. You say first there's samadhi and then a realization. So does that mean that every time you enter into samadhi you have a realization? Yes, and Yes Though, to the former, in a Samadhi state of conciousness, "you" are not doing calculas, either calculas is happening, or it is not.... To the latter, yes, mind is informed by a Samadhi state of conciousness everytime, and each time, that "end game" realization ends up being...."deeper" Its more nuanced than that though, for example, when one concentrates alertly on an object or experience as the opening into Samadhi conciousness, one has realizations about the nature of the object when one returns to a self individuated conciousness. When one makes the ME, or experience of "self" the object of alert concentration as the focal point of opening into Samadhi consciousness, one has ever deepening realizations of the nature of self. The more realizations that occur, the more one realizes that they are all pointing back at the Samadhi state of consciousness As far as the realizations themselves go, they come in all shapes and sizes, from a little aha kinda deal, to the grand big woo woo realizations., but one thing is always the same, step by step, sometimes big steps, and sometimes baby steps, the self is letting go of its attachment to individuated experience, and moving toward the undifferentiated conciousness that is Samadhi The most recent aha type realization that I had, was that my individuated conciousness re-asserts itself for only one reason anymore. And that is to be, or experience a closeness to God. What I mean by that, is that I've come to accept Samadhi conciousness as a kind of God union, where I totally disappear into God. But in that moment right after one re-emerges from Samadhi, the individuation is as close to God as you get in this state of consciousness....its as though the self re-emerges to know Samadhi, or God. In any case, thats just my experience, so take it with a grain of salt....but one thing is very clear, enlightenment is just a step along the way to unbroken Samadhi. The end game is not knowledge or awareness of your true nature, its an absolute union of being in your true nature that contains no limitations or experience of an individuation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 19, 2013 1:51:33 GMT -5
Can you do calculus when you are in samadhi? You describe Samadhi as something that does come and go. You say first there's samadhi and then a realization. So does that mean that every time you enter into samadhi you have a realization? Yes, and Yes Though, to the former, in a Samadhi state of conciousness, "you" are not doing calculas, either calculas is happening, or it is not.... To the latter, yes, mind is informed by a Samadhi state of conciousness everytime, and each time, that "end game" realization ends up being...."deeper" Its more nuanced than that though, for example, when one concentrates alertly on an object or experience as the opening into Samadhi conciousness, one has realizations about the nature of the object when one returns to a self individuated conciousness. When one makes the ME, or experience of "self" the object of alert concentration as the focal point of opening into Samadhi consciousness, one has ever deepening realizations of the nature of self. The more realizations that occur, the more one realizes that they are all pointing back at the Samadhi state of consciousness As far as the realizations themselves go, they come in all shapes and sizes, from a little aha kinda deal, to the grand big woo woo realizations., but one thing is always the same, step by step, sometimes big steps, and sometimes baby steps, the self is letting go of its attachment to individuated experience, and moving toward the undifferentiated conciousness that is Samadhi The most recent aha type realization that I had, was that my individuated conciousness re-asserts itself for only one reason anymore. And that is to be, or experience a closeness to God. What I mean by that, is that I've come to accept Samadhi conciousness as a kind of God union, where I totally disappear into God. But in that moment where the self is about to merge into pure selfless existance, and that moment right after one re-emerges from Samadhi, the individuation is as close to God as you get in this state of conciousness. When the individuated self is done with knowing God, and is ready to be permanently lost in God, the individuated consciousness may not re-emerge. In any case, thats just my experience, so take it with a grain of salt....but one thing is very clear, enlightenment is just a step along the way to unbroken Samadhi. The end game is not knowledge or awareness of your true nature, its an absolute union of being in your true nature that contains no limitations or experience of an individuation. Thanks for the edit. So samadhi and the realizations are a result of what you do with your attention/focus? I'm not really clear about what is actually called samadhi. Seems to me a lot of folks use it to describe a lot of things. When I hear samadhi, especially 'deep' samadhi I usually think of Ramakrishna standing there like a motionless statue, no hearbeat, no breathing, cold body, totally unaware of what's going on around him. That's not your goal, is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 2:25:31 GMT -5
Yes, and Yes Though, to the former, in a Samadhi state of conciousness, "you" are not doing calculas, either calculas is happening, or it is not.... To the latter, yes, mind is informed by a Samadhi state of conciousness everytime, and each time, that "end game" realization ends up being...."deeper" Its more nuanced than that though, for example, when one concentrates alertly on an object or experience as the opening into Samadhi conciousness, one has realizations about the nature of the object when one returns to a self individuated conciousness. When one makes the ME, or experience of "self" the object of alert concentration as the focal point of opening into Samadhi consciousness, one has ever deepening realizations of the nature of self. The more realizations that occur, the more one realizes that they are all pointing back at the Samadhi state of consciousness As far as the realizations themselves go, they come in all shapes and sizes, from a little aha kinda deal, to the grand big woo woo realizations., but one thing is always the same, step by step, sometimes big steps, and sometimes baby steps, the self is letting go of its attachment to individuated experience, and moving toward the undifferentiated conciousness that is Samadhi The most recent aha type realization that I had, was that my individuated conciousness re-asserts itself for only one reason anymore. And that is to be, or experience a closeness to God. What I mean by that, is that I've come to accept Samadhi conciousness as a kind of God union, where I totally disappear into God. But in that moment where the self is about to merge into pure selfless existance, and that moment right after one re-emerges from Samadhi, the individuation is as close to God as you get in this state of conciousness. When the individuated self is done with knowing God, and is ready to be permanently lost in God, the individuated consciousness may not re-emerge. In any case, thats just my experience, so take it with a grain of salt....but one thing is very clear, enlightenment is just a step along the way to unbroken Samadhi. The end game is not knowledge or awareness of your true nature, its an absolute union of being in your true nature that contains no limitations or experience of an individuation. Thanks for the edit. So samadhi and the realizations are a result of what you do with your attention/focus? I'm not really clear about what is actually called samadhi. Seems to me a lot of folks use it to describe a lot of things. When I hear samadhi, especially 'deep' samadhi I usually think of Ramakrishna standing there like a motionless statue, no hearbeat, no breathing, cold body, totally unaware of what's going on around him. That's not your goal, is it? I re-edited again...I usually get it right-ish about the third time ;-) I don't know if I'd call Samadhi the result of what you do with your attention and focus, as this implies that Samadhi is not always there, and is something acquired, when really its more like a shift to what is already there, kinda like you are a soap bubble filled with air floating in the air, when the membrane of the bubble pops, the air in the bubble that was separated from the air outside the bubble simply re-unites, and the individuated bubble of air is no more. In another way, its as though alert concentrated pops the bubble so to speak....words fail really. In both "deep" or absolute Samadhi, and relative Samadhi, one is not aware of whats going on around them, because the individuation that is aware is completely merged and disappeared into whats going on around them....said another way, in Samadhi, one is not aware of whats going on and the objects around them....rather, in a kind of absolute way, one IS whats going on around them. Its the UTTER oneness of no self. Nothing is lost in this state, rather, everything is gained in an absolute way. From the individuated perspective, Ramakrishna may appear to have lost consciousness, he has not lost consciousness in that state, he has dramatically increased it beyond the consciousness of a knowing doing individuation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 2:35:20 GMT -5
As an aside, Ramakrishna's low heart rate and cold body etc, are not part and parcel with Samadhi....in all likelihood, his body went like that as the result of a yogic practice that he was using to drop the individuated consciousness into Samadhi...the shutting down of his body was his way of concentrating awareness until his individuated awareness disappeared into Samadhi.
But don't conflate the practices used for opening to Samadhi with the state of Samadhi...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 19, 2013 2:57:38 GMT -5
ha As an aside, Ramakrishna's low heart rate and cold body etc, are not part and parcel with Samadhi....in all likelihood, his body went like that as the result of a yogic practice that he was using to drop the individuated consciousness into Samadhi...the shutting down of his body was his way of concentrating awareness until his individuated awareness disappeared into Samadhi. But don't conflate the practice of opening to Samadhi with the state of Samadhi... That's right. He did some serious practice. But his samadhi usually was spontaneous. Often when he was dancing or singing he would suddenly turn into a motionless statue and his disciples had to take care of his body. Then he had no awareness of his body or surroundings. He wasn't unconscious. So that's why it sounds more like a mind trip. Here's a picture:
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 19, 2013 3:15:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the edit. So samadhi and the realizations are a result of what you do with your attention/focus? I'm not really clear about what is actually called samadhi. Seems to me a lot of folks use it to describe a lot of things. When I hear samadhi, especially 'deep' samadhi I usually think of Ramakrishna standing there like a motionless statue, no hearbeat, no breathing, cold body, totally unaware of what's going on around him. That's not your goal, is it? I re-edited again...I usually get it right-ish about the third time ;-) I don't know if I'd call Samadhi the result of what you do with your attention and focus, as this implies that Samadhi is not always there, and is something acquired, when really its more like a shift to what is already there, kinda like you are a soap bubble filled with air floating in the air, when the membrane of the bubble pops, the air in the bubble that was separated from the air outside the bubble simply re-unites, and the individuated bubble of air is no more. In another way, its as though alert concentrated pops the bubble so to speak....words fail really. In both "deep" or absolute Samadhi, and relative Samadhi, one is not aware of whats going on around them, because the individuation that is aware is completely merged and disappeared into whats going on around them....said another way, in Samadhi, one is not aware of whats going on and the objects around them....rather, in a kind of absolute way, one IS whats going on around them. Its the UTTER oneness of no self. Nothing is lost in this state, rather, everything is gained in an absolute way. From the individuated perspective, Ramakrishna may appear to have lost consciousness, but I assure you, he has not lost consciousness in that state, he has dramatically increased it beyond the consciousness of a knowing doing individuation. Okay, so samadhi would be more like the natural state then, that what remains when you've cleared away the personal/fragmented overlay? Your description is a little confusing. The soap bubble analogy seems to imply that the world around doesn't disappear, only the personal boundaries (i.e. separation), your paragraph about loss of awareness of 'what's going on around', however, seems to imply that the world around disappears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 3:26:07 GMT -5
ha As an aside, Ramakrishna's low heart rate and cold body etc, are not part and parcel with Samadhi....in all likelihood, his body went like that as the result of a yogic practice that he was using to drop the individuated consciousness into Samadhi...the shutting down of his body was his way of concentrating awareness until his individuated awareness disappeared into Samadhi. But don't conflate the practice of opening to Samadhi with the state of Samadhi... That's right. He did some serious practice. But his samadhi usually was spontaneous. Often when he was dancing or singing he would suddenly turn into a motionless statue and his disciples had to take care of his body. Then he had no awareness of his body or surroundings. He wasn't unconscious. So that's why it sounds more like a mind trip. Here's a picture: Sometimes in Samadhi the sensory experiences are there, and sometimes they are not.... When they are there in relative Samadhi, one is not witnessing them, one IS them in a kind of state of hyper consciousness. And in the case of absolute Samadhi when no sensory experience is there, there is only hyper consciousness without form....it might sound odd when viewed from the perspective of a witnesser of sensory experience, but fundamentally, there is no real difference between relative Samadhi where there is the appearence of sensory phenomena and absolute Samadhi where there is no sensory phenomena. In either aspect of Samadhi, there is no awareness OF phenomena, only an absolute isness...or Awareness AS phenomena.... Having said all that, there is really no effective means to communicate Samadhi, kinda gotta "see" for yourself, then I can watch you try to communicate it lol As far as Ramakrishna goes, for all I know he was having some kind of seizure lol But assuming that he was going into an absolute Samadhi, this does not mean that Samadhi is unconsciousness, it is hyper concious, only sometimes that conciousness is a sensory experience, and sometimes its not.....it may appear from the perspective of a sensing individuation, that when one is not engaged in sensory perception, that there is no consciousness, but conciousness is not limited to sensory function, the lack of sensory experience does not mean that there is no conciousness. In a state of absloute Samadhi, there is only hyper consciousness without form, in relative Samadhi there is only hyper consciousness in form, and they are one and the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 3:46:04 GMT -5
Regarding ramakrishna just instantly and spontainiously opening into absolute Samadhi conciousness....the more one opens into Samadhi, the easier it becomes, in the beggining an intensly focused effort over weeks or months may be needed, but the more its done, the less effort is required....now it only takes me a moment to open into relative Samadhi, the blink of an eye is enough time and it is effortless, though absolute Samadhi still takes some effort for me, not nearly as much as it use to....so for ramakrishna to be able to instantly open into absolute Samadhi in the blink of an eye in any moment is not suprising, given that he probably spent years moving in and out of that state of conciousness.....like anything in life, repetition and familiarity make it less of an effort, until it can be something that is effortless and spontaneous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 4:17:01 GMT -5
I re-edited again...I usually get it right-ish about the third time ;-) I don't know if I'd call Samadhi the result of what you do with your attention and focus, as this implies that Samadhi is not always there, and is something acquired, when really its more like a shift to what is already there, kinda like you are a soap bubble filled with air floating in the air, when the membrane of the bubble pops, the air in the bubble that was separated from the air outside the bubble simply re-unites, and the individuated bubble of air is no more. In another way, its as though alert concentrated pops the bubble so to speak....words fail really. In both "deep" or absolute Samadhi, and relative Samadhi, one is not aware of whats going on around them, because the individuation that is aware is completely merged and disappeared into whats going on around them....said another way, in Samadhi, one is not aware of whats going on and the objects around them....rather, in a kind of absolute way, one IS whats going on around them. Its the UTTER oneness of no self. Nothing is lost in this state, rather, everything is gained in an absolute way. From the individuated perspective, Ramakrishna may appear to have lost consciousness, but I assure you, he has not lost consciousness in that state, he has dramatically increased it beyond the consciousness of a knowing doing individuation. Your description is a little confusing. The soap bubble analogy seems to imply that the world around doesn't disappear, only the personal boundaries (i.e. separation), your paragraph about loss of awareness of 'what's going on around', however, seems to imply that the world around disappears. This is a subtle point, first, remember that even though they are fundamentallythe same, in absolute Samadhi there is no sensory experience, and in relative Samadhi there is sensory phenomena. In the case of relative Samadhi, wherein there is the occurance of phenomena, one is the phenomena without awareness OF it. As SDP discussed earlier today, the average joe spends most of their life completely absorbed in sensory experience and thoughts....they are very seldom conciously aware of there own awareness. At some point on this path, you become the witness, and are very aware of your awareness. but then there is this kind of seperation between the witness amd the witnessed....in fact, a lot of spiritual practices are all about seperating the witnesser from the witnessed....neti neti is an example of this.....the purpose of these practices that identify the seperation of the witness and the witnesser....or awareness from what awareness is aware of, is that one can identify the source of their self,....i.e. their individuation's true nature. One seprates the witnesser from what is witnessed, and centers one self in the witness i stead of being absorbed in and self identified with things that are witnessed, like one's thoughts, or personality, or body etc...one realizes that they are their awareness, and not what they are aware of.....the individuated conciousness is aware of whats going on around it.....in this state of aware individuation, one is aware of the bowl in front of them, one is aware of seeing, touching, and sensing the bowl in front of them, and one is aware of the self that is experiencing the bowl. But all these focal points of awareness also create the perception of a seperation from the bowl, the perception of the sepration between the perceiver, the act of perceiving, and the bowl that is percieved....one can intellectually understand that these things are not seperate on some level, but the actual experience in front of them is that there is a perciever, the act of perceiving, and what is percieved... I Samadhi, the three become one in such a way that there is no act of percieving, there is no perciever, there is only the bowl existing (in the case of relative Samadhi), and in the case of Absolute Samadhi, there is only formless conciousness existing. So when one is undone into Samadhi conciousness, there is no "being aware OF" whats happening around the body, there is only BEING what is happening around the body, and everything else. Observer and observed experientially become one, but instead of the observed disappearing into the observer, its more like the observer disappears into the observed.....odd that last bit...:-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 4:39:51 GMT -5
I thought this might make a decent discussion thread, and am interested in your view, so I reposted this here as a stan alone thread. What do you guys think about Realization being secondary to a fundamental shift in conciousness from the direct experience of individuation to the direct experience of non-individuated unified consciousness? Why do you guys think there is so much emphasis on enlightenment, or realization in "spiritual circles" versus Samadhi, or unified limitless consciousness? last thing first.... Most 'teachers' need 'a following'. They want to be the centre of attraction, look pretty, an wise an know it all...otherwise they disperse in a crowd, appearing ordinary again. They do this also, when they fall asleep and forget they're special. When awakening in the morning, they're first an ordinary-person... then their mind awakens, arises reminding them, that they're the special-one an set about, keeping the minds of the surrounding people upon them. Teachers don't care to be ordinary, they want to be special so that others care for them, pay-them attention, pay-them dollars even, as they don't care sufficiently to work as in many cases, it shows-up their imperfections. Working, one comes in touch with ignorance/unknowing or unconditioned conciousness... that which lurks within their sub-concious. Working brings things up for un-realised teachers. Its best that others do their work. WOULD THE REAL TEACHER PLEASE STAND-UP? First thing last... Ego is what needs to give-value to these two separate states of concious-reality. That which takes the bait and wants to know, is ego. That which is having the experiece is separated from reality...is an identity-figure. Identity is in the mental-realm. Experience comes about as Two unify and after the experience, the identity recomposes its idea of self, saying, "Wow! that was an experience...now, what can my 'I" make of it, to appear intelligent?" .
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 19, 2013 5:30:53 GMT -5
I thought this might make a decent discussion thread, and am interested in your view, so I reposted this here as a stan alone thread. Most modern spiritual teachers seem to fundamentally talk about the same things, which are: 1. What Enlightenment is like. (Which is a totally useless thing to discuss because unless you have had a kensho or realization experience hearing about other's is useless) 2. The nature of reality that they perceive as a result of realization. (Which is all a bunch of useless crap that creates more mind spin in those that have not had a kensho experience) 3. The impact that enlightenment has had on their psyche and the way they interact with life. (Which is an explanation of their own feelgoodism) 4. (This one ends up being the bulk of every conversation) An explanation on how you may incorporate the lessons of their enlightenment into your own life in a way that improves your interaction with life. (Feelgoodism) Most of what folks like the TAT crowd and most other teachers that hold satsangs and discussions talk about how to interact with life from a platform of realization in a way that improves your interaction with life as an individual. Its the same thing that Mooji and Adyashanti and most others discuss, only frankly his delivery is not as skillful at making you feel good while listening to him. But the real issue isn't all of that, its that the whole conversation is a strawman, and misses the point that realization is not a goal or a destination, its a tool at best, and a distraction at worst. Realization/Enlightenment, does not solve the fundamental problem, which is one's limited state of individuated awareness absorbed in a ME....sure, enlightenment evens things out for the ME, and one is not drug along by the ups and downs of life, which is a very useful platform from which to shift consciousness, but it is not the end game. The purpose of enlightenment is to inform the mind of the lack of need to cling to individuated consciousness and to attract it toward dropping the experience of individuation and exchange it for universal being.....enlightenment is an opening of a space that makes it easier and less scary to let go of individuation as an experience....to do this it informs the mind on an intellectual and emotional level that it is not the illusion of an individuation and that there is no "substance" to this existence.....but this is the mind being intellectually and emotionally informed, without there being a real/permanent shift in the nature of conciousness. In most cases one has a momentary shift of consciousness from the individuated perspective to the unified perspective, which precipitates a mental realization about one's true nature. Too often in modern culture One then clings to this realization and tries to use it to improve their life, instead of letting go of the life of the individual in favor of the loss of self in a unified consciousness. The result is that that individual goes on living life within the illusionary experience of individuation, all the while knowing intellectually and emotionally that they are not an individuation....And the frequent result for the people they talk to is that many just try to mimc the intellectual realization themselves, without ever doing the things that lead to the "teachers" realization. The teachers themselves often drop all the practices that lead to the momentary shift in consciousness that spawned the realization....when all along, the purpose of the realization is to make it easier to make the momentary shift from the experience of individuation to the permanent experience of a unified whole. The other thing is that people see realization as a completion of practice and understanding, when really it is the beginning of deeper experience, IF ONE MOVES DEEPER INTO THE PRACTICES THAT SHIFTED THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS and spawned the kensho in the first place...:-) Fundamentally, its all a discussion about enlightenment that means nothing if you haven't actually experienced it for yourself, and the hole conversation misses the point of this path in the first place lol This path is not about understanding that informs mind on how to live a better life, this is not what our deepest inner yearnings are crying out for, our deepest inner yearning is for a return to wholeness,...... not an understanding of wholeness informed by enlightenment, but an ever deepening experience of wholeness that only comes from deepening states of consciousness, that ultimately arrive at a constant state of Samadhi, which, in its various levels increasingly drops the experience (not just the understanding) of individuation in favor of a merging with the infinite. In these discussions, all the talk is related to enlightenment, with almost no mention of the state of unified experience and experiencer that the human condition yearns for, nor the means of attaining it...enlightenment is an understanding, not a state, and the state of unified consciousness is what humanity is searching for. Enlightenment is not the end game, and yet it is most often discussed and sought as if it were. Samadhi; the complete merging of the experiencer into the experience, is the "end game", when the observer is disappeared and become one with the observed, what humanity consciously and unconsciously yearns for is fully actuated. The pursuit of happiness/Feelgoodism/enlightenment, are all proxies for the conscious living reunion of the individuated with the rest of existence.....this is Samadhi. What do you guys think about Realization being secondary to a fundamental shift in conciousness from the direct experience of individuation to the direct experience of non-individuated unified consciousness? Why do you guys think there is so much emphasis on enlightenment, or realization in "spiritual circles" versus Samadhi, or unified limitless consciousness? Thanks for your descriptions of the states. I admire your enthusiasm and there is a sort of sublime peacefulness of your subjective that comes through when you write about this stuff. Your point about relating the unrelatable is well made, but the thing is that if these teachers you've referred to weren't able to appeal to some common essence in the people that they were speaking to then these conversations all would have dried up ages ago instead of taking on lives of their own. There is a polarity here at play between this commonality on one hand, and the individuated expression of it on the other. My guess is that this deepening into ever more profound states of unity that you suggest has no bottom to it. This of course implies that while what is approached is the same for everyone, how close to it one feels will differ (and likely will vary over time), as will the expressions of it in terms of an experience. Those expressions will and do share certain characteristics, but as you've said repeatedly, it's like trying to give someone the taste of a peach. I smiled at your answer to Reefs question about a new realization on each samadhi, as something ZD said once comes to mind, and seems quite applicable to my own experience: "no two meditations are ever the same". If you're including use of the rational mind within the ambit of what you consider samadhi then this permanent state you're talking about isn't something that's never not the case ... it's only your experience of it that varies. I'd say the answer to your question at the end is obvious and twofold: the people who are drawn to this type of cultural movement who haven't had an experience on the level you outline are curious about it and the ones that have had one are even moreso. On the other, people who aren't curious about these experiences and how the incumbent realization is entangled with them don't bother with such teachers (at least in the role of student), and this includes people on two extremes of the implied spectrum. Your interests lie in the rarified air of one far end of that spectrum. Your use of the word enlightenment doesn't fit for me because I take enlightenment to refer to a nonconceptual resolution of the question of the relationship between an ineffable unity and the individuated expression of it. Neither idea actually applies in that the validity of either idea sort of evaporates in the resolution. This is an expression of what I take the idea that's expressed as "realization informing the mind" to mean, and how the two ideas of realization and enlightenment fit together isn't something that will ever find complete and final expression because what they're based on, ineffability, throws a monkey wrench into the expression/understanding machine even before the on switch is thrown. I'm having fun with my current practices and look forward to some of the stuff your're describing but it's important to recognize that no matter how often or deep these states of consciousness become for you, the basis of them is the commonality that you share with every other human being ... whether they're fully mind/body identified, 103% Bhudda, or anywhere in between -- no one is any less special than the other precisely because of this commonality.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 19, 2013 7:55:53 GMT -5
Nice post, Laughter.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 19, 2013 8:45:39 GMT -5
Why do you guys think that there is so much focus on enlightenment, or realization in "spiritual circles", versus a focus on Samadhi, or unified limitless consciousness? If we're to talk about samadhi as extreme mental silence, the obvious answer is that most are unable to be that still and so the discussion naturally evolves into why that is. The other piece is that Samadhi is a doorway to clarity or a facilitator of realization and not some sort of goal in and of itself. Amen, and that's what SQ was pointing to.
|
|