Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2013 18:40:22 GMT -5
Talk about a wild imagination. Any thoughts about the OP? I intended to only write "no attack" threads, but forgot to include that phrase in the title of this one. IMO it helps keep the threads focused on the OP rather than judgments about posters. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2013 19:56:31 GMT -5
If someone does not identify as a person "in here," what is it that makes her feel like she is separate from the world around her? Any feedback? It seems common that the mind becomes informed by a moment of absolute stillness that there is no seperate autonomous self. But it seems equally common that even after the mind is informed of such a thing, that the experience of a self still remains, meaning that even though the mind has seen clearly that there is no seperate autonomous self, one's perspective does not also shift accordingly...by "perspective", in this instance, I don't mean mental perspective, I mean viewing perspective...i.e. viewing existance from within the personal perspective, or viewing existance from a larger perspective beyond the personal self. This experience of a seperate self seems to wain the more one returns to those periods of absolute alert stillness, or Samadhi. Its interesting in that one can open into an absolutely still state of meditation or Samadhi hundreds or thousands of times, but the mind will kinda gloss over what is obvious in such a state. Mind will just pick up and keep moving along carrying on as usual, but then the right "recipe" so to speak will be in place, and when one enters alertly into a moment of Samadhi and then for whatever reasons, that particular time, when the mind re-emerges, it does not gloss over the obvious, instead, it looks at it, is informed by it....and poof. Often one is not even trying to meditate or open into Samadhi....they are just sitting or whatever, and the mind will just stop for a moment, and one will have a moment or more of spontaneous Samadhi....and its enough...the mind doesn't just carry on as usual when it re-emerges...it sees what is there and accepts it. However, if one does not keep going back to those moments of absolute alert stillness, the mind can return to the preeminence of perspective of experience. There is no "great teacher" like Ramana or others that did not keep returning to absolute alert stillness after realization, on the contrary, they typically spent MORE time in that state post realization.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Oct 13, 2013 20:07:58 GMT -5
If someone does not identify as a person "in here," what is it that makes her feel like she is separate from the world around her? Any feedback? It seems common that the mind becomes informed by a moment of absolute stillness that there is no seperate autonomous self. But it seems equally common that even after the mind is informed of such a thing, that the experience of a self still remains, meaning that even though the mind has seen clearly that there is no seperate autonomous self, one's perspective does not also shift accordingly.... This experience of a seperate self seems to wain the more one returns to those periods of absolute alert stillness, or Samadhi. Its interesting in that one can open into an absolutely still state of meditation or Samadhi hundreds or thousands of times, but the mind will kinda gloss over what is obvious in such a state. Mind will just pick up and keep moving along carrying on as usual, but then the right "recipe" so to speak will be in place, and when one enters alertly into a moment of Samadhi and then for whatever reasons, that particular time, when the mind re-emerges, it does not gloss over the obvious, instead, it looks at it, is informed by it....and poof. Often one is not even trying to meditate or open into Samadhi....they are just sitting or whatever, and the mind will just stop for a moment, and one will have a moment or more of spontaneous Samadhi....and its enough...the mind doesn't just carry on as usual when it re-emerges...it sees what is there and accepts it. However, if one does not keep going back those moments of absolute alert stillness, the mind can remain or return to preeminence of experience. There is no "great teacher" like Ramana or others that did not keep returning to absolute alert stillness after realization, on the contrary, they typically spent MORE time in that state post realization. always returning that which escapes unkowingly
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2013 21:32:59 GMT -5
If someone does not identify as a person "in here," what is it that makes her feel like she is separate from the world around her? Any feedback? It seems common that the mind becomes informed by a moment of absolute stillness that there is no seperate autonomous self. But it seems equally common that even after the mind is informed of such a thing, that the experience of a self still remains, meaning that even though the mind has seen clearly that there is no seperate autonomous self, one's perspective does not also shift accordingly....This experience of a seperate self seems to wain the more one returns to those periods of absolute alert stillness, or Samadhi. Its interesting in that one can open into an absolutely still state of meditation or Samadhi hundreds or thousands of times, but the mind will kinda gloss over what is obvious in such a state. Mind will just pick up and keep moving along carrying on as usual, but then the right "recipe" so to speak will be in place, and when one enters alertly into a moment of Samadhi and then for whatever reasons, that particular time, when the mind re-emerges, it does not gloss over the obvious, instead, it looks at it, is informed by it....and poof. Often one is not even trying to meditate or open into Samadhi....they are just sitting or whatever, and the mind will just stop for a moment, and one will have a moment or more of spontaneous Samadhi....and its enough...the mind doesn't just carry on as usual when it re-emerges...it sees what is there and accepts it. However, if one does not keep going back those moments of absolute alert stillness, the mind can remain or return to preeminence of experience. There is no "great teacher" like Ramana or others that did not keep returning to absolute alert stillness after realization, on the contrary, they typically spent MORE time in that state post realization. The individuated mind/body through which experience happens IS a perspective, and there's no reason or need for that to change. It might be viewed as a kind of window on creation, or perhaps a lucid dream, but just as in night time lucid dreams, with the knowledge that one is not actually IN the dream, and the dreamscape is mental smoke and mirrors, there is still the individuated perspective and the dream goes on. The 'experience of a separate self' is a different matter and is clearly a conclusion about that experiential perspective that is not necessary in order for the experience of an individuated perspective to continue. We don't need to get rid of perspectives, just beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Oct 13, 2013 22:22:21 GMT -5
It seems common that the mind becomes informed by a moment of absolute stillness that there is no seperate autonomous self. But it seems equally common that even after the mind is informed of such a thing, that the experience of a self still remains, meaning that even though the mind has seen clearly that there is no seperate autonomous self, one's perspective does not also shift accordingly....This experience of a seperate self seems to wain the more one returns to those periods of absolute alert stillness, or Samadhi. Its interesting in that one can open into an absolutely still state of meditation or Samadhi hundreds or thousands of times, but the mind will kinda gloss over what is obvious in such a state. Mind will just pick up and keep moving along carrying on as usual, but then the right "recipe" so to speak will be in place, and when one enters alertly into a moment of Samadhi and then for whatever reasons, that particular time, when the mind re-emerges, it does not gloss over the obvious, instead, it looks at it, is informed by it....and poof. Often one is not even trying to meditate or open into Samadhi....they are just sitting or whatever, and the mind will just stop for a moment, and one will have a moment or more of spontaneous Samadhi....and its enough...the mind doesn't just carry on as usual when it re-emerges...it sees what is there and accepts it. However, if one does not keep going back those moments of absolute alert stillness, the mind can remain or return to preeminence of experience. There is no "great teacher" like Ramana or others that did not keep returning to absolute alert stillness after realization, on the contrary, they typically spent MORE time in that state post realization. We don't need to get rid of perspectives, just beliefs. believing that there is no-self is the height of ignorance,and yet, the higher we get the closer to death we find ourself; narcissism has the effect of bringing us back-to our common reality, that which we were born into.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 14, 2013 19:02:29 GMT -5
Any thoughts about the OP? [/quote] Sure. The experience of a self is literally that movement of mind interpreting the experience and forming timelines and conclusions around it. What seems to happen for many is a simplified misunderstanding through which a particular sensation or thought pattern is identified with. When this sensation (perhaps abdominal contraction) ceases, a conclusion is formed by drawing on the knowledge they have gathered and out comes "I've lost my self, help!". I'd say Segal didn't lose the experience of a self but rather dramatically altered her interpretation of her experience and made it problematic for herself. She then sought help for it, perhaps unconsciously looking for a more suitable interpretation and was told that the interpretation itself must end thereby focusing the light precisely on the problem. The end of that reflective interpretation is not nearly as simple as most would like. Genuine clarity can actually intensify this compulsion rather than ending it. You see it here constantly when someone has some new insight or whatever and they can't stop talking about it, looking at it from different angles and fitting it into some grander theory or method of advice. Even more ironically, while this is going on and the experience of a self has actually been intensified, they may be trying to show others how to see through the self. Actually leaving the experience alone decimates the entire thing. No more selves being lost and gained. No spiritual timeline, no closer or further away from God union or whatever the newest craze might be.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 14, 2013 20:14:09 GMT -5
Any thoughts about the OP? Sure. The experience of a self is literally that movement of mind interpreting the experience and forming timelines and conclusions around it. What seems to happen for many is a simplified misunderstanding through which a particular sensation or thought pattern is identified with. When this sensation (perhaps abdominal contraction) ceases, a conclusion is formed by drawing on the knowledge they have gathered and out comes "I've lost my self, help!". I'd say Segal didn't lose the experience of a self but rather dramatically altered her interpretation of her experience and made it problematic for herself. She then sought help for it, perhaps unconsciously looking for a more suitable interpretation and was told that the interpretation itself must end thereby focusing the light precisely on the problem. The end of that reflective interpretation is not nearly as simple as most would like. Genuine clarity can actually intensify this compulsion rather than ending it. You see it here constantly when someone has some new insight or whatever and they can't stop talking about it, looking at it from different angles and fitting it into some grander theory or method of advice. Even more ironically, while this is going on and the experience of a self has actually been intensified, they may be trying to show others how to see through the self. Actually leaving the experience alone decimates the entire thing. No more selves being lost and gained. No spiritual timeline, no closer or further away from God union or whatever the newest craze might be. Yeah, that's why I'm not so much into bloody ego death, death, death, or even in the personal accomplishment of permanent absence in Samadhi. It's much more like just losing interest in the story and not thinking about it anymore. That's the difference between glorious victory or the agony of defeat, vs turning and walking off the battlefield. This whole notion of being terribly disturbed because there is no me, sounds absurd. It's a bit like the rope being all despondent because he's not a snake.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 14, 2013 20:30:16 GMT -5
Sure. The experience of a self is literally that movement of mind interpreting the experience and forming timelines and conclusions around it. What seems to happen for many is a simplified misunderstanding through which a particular sensation or thought pattern is identified with. When this sensation (perhaps abdominal contraction) ceases, a conclusion is formed by drawing on the knowledge they have gathered and out comes "I've lost my self, help!". I'd say Segal didn't lose the experience of a self but rather dramatically altered her interpretation of her experience and made it problematic for herself. She then sought help for it, perhaps unconsciously looking for a more suitable interpretation and was told that the interpretation itself must end thereby focusing the light precisely on the problem. The end of that reflective interpretation is not nearly as simple as most would like. Genuine clarity can actually intensify this compulsion rather than ending it. You see it here constantly when someone has some new insight or whatever and they can't stop talking about it, looking at it from different angles and fitting it into some grander theory or method of advice. Even more ironically, while this is going on and the experience of a self has actually been intensified, they may be trying to show others how to see through the self. Actually leaving the experience alone decimates the entire thing. No more selves being lost and gained. No spiritual timeline, no closer or further away from God union or whatever the newest craze might be. Yeah, that's why I'm not so much into bloody ego death, death, death, or even in the personal accomplishment of permanent absence in Samadhi. It's much more like just losing interest in the story and not thinking about it anymore. That's the difference between glorious victory or the agony of defeat, vs turning and walking off the battlefield. This whole notion of being terribly disturbed because there is no me, sounds absurd. It's a bit like the rope being all despondent because he's not a snake. I suspect for most, "no me" instantly gets translated into "I don't exist" and off the dissociation and fear wagon goes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2013 21:04:34 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why I'm not so much into bloody ego death, death, death, or even in the personal accomplishment of permanent absence in Samadhi. It's much more like just losing interest in the story and not thinking about it anymore. That's the difference between glorious victory or the agony of defeat, vs turning and walking off the battlefield. This whole notion of being terribly disturbed because there is no me, sounds absurd. It's a bit like the rope being all despondent because he's not a snake. I suspect for most, "no me" instantly gets translated into "I don't exist" and off the dissociation and fear wagon goes.But that's what they want...that's what they are fighting for and vigilant to save. They are filled with idea's to save the face of their ego's and not to seek the face of Truth.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 15, 2013 1:54:40 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why I'm not so much into bloody ego death, death, death, or even in the personal accomplishment of permanent absence in Samadhi. It's much more like just losing interest in the story and not thinking about it anymore. That's the difference between glorious victory or the agony of defeat, vs turning and walking off the battlefield. This whole notion of being terribly disturbed because there is no me, sounds absurd. It's a bit like the rope being all despondent because he's not a snake. I suspect for most, "no me" instantly gets translated into "I don't exist" and off the dissociation and fear wagon goes. Most likely, yeah, but then mayhaps a moments reflection on how one can contemplate one's own non-existence is in order. One clearly does exist, and there's no reason that issue can't be put out of it's misery. As for that existence having a center that one needs to point to with one a them fancy laser pointers, maybe the absurdity of that one can be seen through too.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 15, 2013 1:58:06 GMT -5
I suspect for most, "no me" instantly gets translated into "I don't exist" and off the dissociation and fear wagon goes. But that's what they want...that's what they are fighting for and vigilant to save. They are filled with idea's to save the face of their ego's and not to seek the face of Truth. Well, yeah, that does slow the whole personal enlightenment process down a bit. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 15, 2013 7:09:06 GMT -5
Sure. The experience of a self is literally that movement of mind interpreting the experience and forming timelines and conclusions around it. What seems to happen for many is a simplified misunderstanding through which a particular sensation or thought pattern is identified with. When this sensation (perhaps abdominal contraction) ceases, a conclusion is formed by drawing on the knowledge they have gathered and out comes "I've lost my self, help!". I'd say Segal didn't lose the experience of a self but rather dramatically altered her interpretation of her experience and made it problematic for herself. She then sought help for it, perhaps unconsciously looking for a more suitable interpretation and was told that the interpretation itself must end thereby focusing the light precisely on the problem. The end of that reflective interpretation is not nearly as simple as most would like. Genuine clarity can actually intensify this compulsion rather than ending it. You see it here constantly when someone has some new insight or whatever and they can't stop talking about it, looking at it from different angles and fitting it into some grander theory or method of advice. Even more ironically, while this is going on and the experience of a self has actually been intensified, they may be trying to show others how to see through the self. Actually leaving the experience alone decimates the entire thing. No more selves being lost and gained. No spiritual timeline, no closer or further away from God union or whatever the newest craze might be. Yeah, that's why I'm not so much into bloody ego death, death, death, or even in the personal accomplishment of permanent absence in Samadhi. It's much more like just losing interest in the story and not thinking about it anymore. That's the difference between glorious victory or the agony of defeat, vs turning and walking off the battlefield. This whole notion of being terribly disturbed because there is no me, sounds absurd. It's a bit like the rope being all despondent because he's not a snake. Yes, either one loses interest in the story or simply sees that the story is a story, only. The logical consequence of seeing that a story is only a story is to shift attention away from all stories to "what is." Klein helped Segal by advising her to stop telling herself a story about a past experience and to embrace the reality of what is always present.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2013 9:25:23 GMT -5
This last weekend I had an interesting conversation that made me think of the young guy who tried the Mooji meditation and either (1) lost his sense of personal selfhood or (2) suffered from what psychiatrists call "depersonalization syndrome." These two things may be the same phenomena talked about differently. In either case, he did not enjoy what had happened, and wished that his old sense of selfhood would return. When Suzanne Segal had the same sort of thing happen to her, her response was similar to that of the young man--fear, horror, dismay, etc. Whether awareness continued 24/7 for the young man as Segal claimed is unknown, and her experience certainly sounds more dramatic as far as the way she described it. AAR, I re-read the part of her story where she met Jean Klein in an effort to understand what his advice was. She explained to Klein that her sense of being an individual separate person had disappeared 10 years prior, and had never returned. He replied, "You mean there is no experience of a 'me'?" Segal responded, "That's right. There's no 'me.' There used to be one, but now there isn't anymore." Klein said, "Well, that's perfect." Segal: But Jean, why is there so much anxiety? And why is there no joy?" Klein: You must stop the part of the mind that constantly keeps trying to look back at the experience. Get that part out of the way, then joy will come." Segal explains: No one else in the room could possibly have known how appropriate his words were. There was a part of the mind--perhaps what we call the self-reflective or introspective function--that kept turning to look and, finding emptiness, kept sending the message that something was wrong. It was a reflex that had developed during the years of living in the illusion of individuality, a reflex we commonly consider necessary to know ourselves. We "look within" repeatedly to determine what we think and feel, to make a study of ourselves and track our states of mind and heart. Now that there was no longer an "in" to look "into," the self-reflective reflex was adrift, but it persisted. It kept turning in and turning in, unable to come to terms with the fact that there was no "in" anymore, only emptiness. Later she writes: What I had lacked during the entire twelve-year journey was calm acceptance. For twelve years I had recived no reassurance; I had been alone. The mind did not know what to make of it all, and it constantly searched for understanding and meaning. It took close to eleven years to finally accept that mind was simply incapable of grasping the vastness of the experience of no personal self. This acceptance cleared the way for the mind to comprehend that an ungraspable experience is just that. It's neither wrong nor crazy--its simply ungraspable. Later in her book she has a quote from Ramana that seems appropriate. Ramana: The fact is that any amount of action can be performed by the jnani without his identifying himself with it in any way or imagining that he is the doer. Some power acts through his body and uses his body to get the work done. Questioner: You say the jnani sees no differences, yet it seems to me that he appreciates differences better than an ordinary man. In fact, all forms, all sounds, all tastes, etc. are the same to him as to others. If so, how can it be said that these are mere appearances? Ramana: I have said that equality is the true sign of a jnani. The very term equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity that the jnani perceives in all differences, which I call equality. Equality does not mean ignorance of distinctions. When you have the realization, you can see that these differences are very superficial, that they are not substantial or permanent and what is essential in all of these appearances is the one truth, the real. That I call unity. The line that most interested me in Segal's account was what Klein said to her--"You must stop the part of the mind that constantly keeps trying to look back at the experience." Klein, as a person/Reality, is saying to a person/Reality, "Stop reflecting upon what happened, stop reflecting upon your story of what happened, and stop reflecting upon your interpretation of what happened. It's just a bad habit." During this last weekend someone asked me, "Do you mean to say that in the past you felt as if you were an entity inside the body looking out at the world, and that that all changed on a particular day?" I said, "Yes, isn;t that you way you experience it? " He replied, "No, I have never felt like there was someone 'in here' looking 'out there. I have never known what I am or where I was located other than this body, and I have always looked to other people to help me figure out, from their reactions, what I should think or feel." After further conversation, I wondered how many people feel as I once did, and how many feel the way this fellow described? IOW, how many people look within, reflectively, and check on their mental states, ideas, feelings, etc, and feel as if they are "inside" looking at a world "outside?" and how many people do not locate their selfhood inside at all? In my case, the "inside/outside" duality ceased on a particular day, and that is what ended the search. I realized that I was not "someone in here" looking at "a world out there;" I was Reality/the universe/beingness looking at Itself. If someone does not identify as a person "in here," what is it that makes her feel like she is separate from the world around her? Any feedback? I find this entire Seagal account very odd. Obviously there was still a lot of minding going on and existential question haven't been wiped out. Sounds very much like depersonalization disorder, i.e. split mind taken to an extreme.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2013 9:33:06 GMT -5
If someone does not identify as a person "in here," what is it that makes her feel like she is separate from the world around her? Any feedback? It seems common that the mind becomes informed by a moment of absolute stillness that there is no seperate autonomous self. But it seems equally common that even after the mind is informed of such a thing, that the experience of a self still remains, meaning that even though the mind has seen clearly that there is no seperate autonomous self, one's perspective does not also shift accordingly...by "perspective", in this instance, I don't mean mental perspective, I mean viewing perspective...i.e. viewing existance from within the personal perspective, or viewing existance from a larger perspective beyond the personal self. This experience of a seperate self seems to wain the more one returns to those periods of absolute alert stillness, or Samadhi. Its interesting in that one can open into an absolutely still state of meditation or Samadhi hundreds or thousands of times, but the mind will kinda gloss over what is obvious in such a state. Mind will just pick up and keep moving along carrying on as usual, but then the right "recipe" so to speak will be in place, and when one enters alertly into a moment of Samadhi and then for whatever reasons, that particular time, when the mind re-emerges, it does not gloss over the obvious, instead, it looks at it, is informed by it....and poof. Often one is not even trying to meditate or open into Samadhi....they are just sitting or whatever, and the mind will just stop for a moment, and one will have a moment or more of spontaneous Samadhi....and its enough...the mind doesn't just carry on as usual when it re-emerges...it sees what is there and accepts it. However, if one does not keep going back to those moments of absolute alert stillness, the mind can return to the preeminence of perspective of experience. There is no "great teacher" like Ramana or others that did not keep returning to absolute alert stillness after realization, on the contrary, they typically spent MORE time in that state post realization. Samadhis that don't wipe out existential questions once and for all are worthless. You could as well get drunk.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2013 9:34:44 GMT -5
It seems common that the mind becomes informed by a moment of absolute stillness that there is no seperate autonomous self. But it seems equally common that even after the mind is informed of such a thing, that the experience of a self still remains, meaning that even though the mind has seen clearly that there is no seperate autonomous self, one's perspective does not also shift accordingly....This experience of a seperate self seems to wain the more one returns to those periods of absolute alert stillness, or Samadhi. Its interesting in that one can open into an absolutely still state of meditation or Samadhi hundreds or thousands of times, but the mind will kinda gloss over what is obvious in such a state. Mind will just pick up and keep moving along carrying on as usual, but then the right "recipe" so to speak will be in place, and when one enters alertly into a moment of Samadhi and then for whatever reasons, that particular time, when the mind re-emerges, it does not gloss over the obvious, instead, it looks at it, is informed by it....and poof. Often one is not even trying to meditate or open into Samadhi....they are just sitting or whatever, and the mind will just stop for a moment, and one will have a moment or more of spontaneous Samadhi....and its enough...the mind doesn't just carry on as usual when it re-emerges...it sees what is there and accepts it. However, if one does not keep going back those moments of absolute alert stillness, the mind can remain or return to preeminence of experience. There is no "great teacher" like Ramana or others that did not keep returning to absolute alert stillness after realization, on the contrary, they typically spent MORE time in that state post realization. The individuated mind/body through which experience happens IS a perspective, and there's no reason or need for that to change. It might be viewed as a kind of window on creation, or perhaps a lucid dream, but just as in night time lucid dreams, with the knowledge that one is not actually IN the dream, and the dreamscape is mental smoke and mirrors, there is still the individuated perspective and the dream goes on. The 'experience of a separate self' is a different matter and is clearly a conclusion about that experiential perspective that is not necessary in order for the experience of an individuated perspective to continue. We don't need to get rid of perspectives, just beliefs. Correcto. The mirage doesn't have to disappear. It's enough to see it for what it is.
|
|