Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 0:38:26 GMT -5
You are incorrect. There is both impersonal and personal. There is the absolute aspect and the manifest expression of the relative aspect. But all is ultimately consciousness.. As you type out your statement on the computer is it a choice or is it automatic. What is your experience? You are just expressing an idea to conform to your belief that there is some abstract idea of impersonal movement with its own order. This is actually true but you are only expressing an idea of it. If you really knew this as direct knowing you would not ask. You're making the mistake of thinking that by saying Neti Neti (not this not this) all the time that somehow it will take on its absolute aspect which right now is just an idea in your imagination which you endlessly repeat in your posts. All right then.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2015 0:46:39 GMT -5
Then what was this samadhi talk about? It was about samadhi? You're the one who introduced samadhi to the self-realization talk. I'm still wondering why?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2015 0:47:39 GMT -5
If this thread is supposed to be about what to do concerning practice, well let's talk about it. Everything I say is concerned only with what is experiential. Does anyone wish to challenge the following statement before I move on? "Turning the attention back to simple awareness cultivates direct knowingness of the distinction between awareness and thought". Before you move on, why not tell us what samadhi has to do with self-realization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 1:05:24 GMT -5
If this thread is supposed to be about what to do concerning practice, well let's talk about it. Everything I say is concerned only with what is experiential. Does anyone wish to challenge the following statement before I move on? "Turning the attention back to simple awareness cultivates direct knowingness of the distinction between awareness and thought". Before you move on, why not tell us what samadhi has to do with self-realization. Nothing at all has anything "to do" with self realization because it is freedom from attachment and identification with objects. It is peace of mind without the need to ask the questions you are asking. You are already that which you are. If this is a discussion about practice then samadhi has a place as both an experience and a pointer. By all means be completely dismissive of the tradition this comes from, make it up as you go along if you like. Choose your own labels and terminology. What do you want?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2015 1:27:02 GMT -5
Before you move on, why not tell us what samadhi has to do with self-realization. Nothing at all has anything "to do" with self realization because it is freedom from attachment and identification with objects. It is peace of mind without the need to ask the questions you are asking. You are already that which you are. If this is a discussion about practice then samadhi has a place as both an experience and a pointer. By all means be completely dismissive of the tradition this comes from, make it up as you go along if you like. Choose your own labels and terminology. What do you want? Why the backpedaling now? Clearly you said: Permanently established samadhi is Self Realization. It is called sahaja samadhi as opposed to nirvikalpa samadhi which is temporary. Now, is samadhi essential for self-realization or has it nothing to with with self-realization at all? make up your mind!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 1:57:55 GMT -5
Nothing at all has anything "to do" with self realization because it is freedom from attachment and identification with objects. It is peace of mind without the need to ask the questions you are asking. You are already that which you are. If this is a discussion about practice then samadhi has a place as both an experience and a pointer. By all means be completely dismissive of the tradition this comes from, make it up as you go along if you like. Choose your own labels and terminology. What do you want? Why the backpedaling now? Clearly you said: Permanently established samadhi is Self Realization. It is called sahaja samadhi as opposed to nirvikalpa samadhi which is temporary. Now, is samadhi essential for self-realization or has it nothing to with with self-realization at all? make up your mind! Are cows necessary for milk. Is fire necessary for smoke. This is causality and interdependency but I know you want to say that SR is acausal and not dependent on anything which of course is right. Why do you have difficulty incorporating both the causal and acausal into the totality of experience. Does it have to be one or the other for you?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2015 2:20:22 GMT -5
Why the backpedaling now? Clearly you said: Now, is samadhi essential for self-realization or has it nothing to with with self-realization at all? make up your mind! Are cows necessary for milk. Is fire necessary for smoke. This is causality and interdependency but I know you want to say that SR is acausal and not dependent on anything which of course is right. Why do you have difficulty incorporating both the causal and acausal into the totality of experience. Does it have to be one or the other for you? As forum history shows, the seeker is usually only interested in stimulation, pleasurable experiences. That's why there's great interest in paths and practices. I dare to say that the seeker isn't actually interested in peace but only relief from too much pain, and if he knew what self-realization actually means, he wouldn't be interested at all. The seeker's focus on pleasurable experiences is certainly the reason why so many are interested in samadhi and tend to mistake samadhi for self-realization. Samadhi can be created at will, with focus. Self-realization has nothing to do with what you do with your focus. It can go hand in hand with samadhi or not. In the past I used to say 'prior to mind' instead of 'acausal' or 'not an experience'. I think the 'acausal' term just stuck after reading a little more U.G. It doesn't really matter what words you use. It's all pointing to the same fact that mind cannot touch it, and therefore what we are dealing with here is basically the 'unthinkable'. If you've got some new and better terms, I'm all ears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 2:27:17 GMT -5
I owe you a proper answer. I will stick to what I said. Permanently established samadhi is realization. It cannot be essential for it or have something to do with it if it is the same thing.
Here are some other words and phrases that mean the same thing: Silence, awareness, God, unboundedness, unconditional Love, freedom from bondage, stillness, oneness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 2:29:19 GMT -5
Are cows necessary for milk. Is fire necessary for smoke. This is causality and interdependency but I know you want to say that SR is acausal and not dependent on anything which of course is right. Why do you have difficulty incorporating both the causal and acausal into the totality of experience. Does it have to be one or the other for you? As forum history shows, the seeker is usually only interested in stimulation, pleasurable experiences. That's why there's great interest in paths and practices. I dare to say that the seeker isn't actually interested in peace but only relief from too much pain, and if he knew what self-realization actually means, he wouldn't be interested at all. The seeker's focus on pleasurable experiences is certainly the reason why so many are interested in samadhi and tend to mistake samadhi for self-realization. Samadhi can be created at will, with focus. Self-realization has nothing to do with what you do with your focus. It can go hand in hand with samadhi or not. In the past I used to say 'prior to mind' instead of 'acausal' or 'not an experience'. I think the 'acausal' term just stuck after reading a little more U.G. It doesn't really matter what words you use. It's all pointing to the same fact that mind cannot touch it, and therefore what we are dealing with here is basically the 'unthinkable'. If you've got some new and better terms, I'm all ears. If samadhi is created by will, then it is not permanent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 2:37:57 GMT -5
Ha ha. UG will make you crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2015 2:50:48 GMT -5
I owe you a proper answer. I will stick to what I said. Permanently established samadhi is realization. It cannot be essential for it or have something to do with it if it is the same thing. Here are some other words and phrases that mean the same thing: Silence, awareness, God, unboundedness, unconditional Love, freedom from bondage, stillness, oneness. Yes, those are the usual words. And they are describing an experience again, i.e it's subjective. That's why some call it an 'absence'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 2:59:11 GMT -5
I owe you a proper answer. I will stick to what I said. Permanently established samadhi is realization. It cannot be essential for it or have something to do with it if it is the same thing. Here are some other words and phrases that mean the same thing: Silence, awareness, God, unboundedness, unconditional Love, freedom from bondage, stillness, oneness. Yes, those are the usual words. And they are describing an experience again, i.e it's subjective. That's why some call it an 'absence'. On a gross level they are. On a subtle level they are not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 3:01:42 GMT -5
Real peace is self evident, all pervasive, self referential, without beginning or end. It is the full potentiality and satisfaction of all possible desires. It's expression from unmanifest Self to manifest Self through the body/mind is bliss. It always is and has always been. It is impossible to doubt it. You don't seem to recognize both the Siva and Shakti aspects of being. You are stuck in the non duality trap.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2015 3:04:20 GMT -5
As forum history shows, the seeker is usually only interested in stimulation, pleasurable experiences. That's why there's great interest in paths and practices. I dare to say that the seeker isn't actually interested in peace but only relief from too much pain, and if he knew what self-realization actually means, he wouldn't be interested at all. The seeker's focus on pleasurable experiences is certainly the reason why so many are interested in samadhi and tend to mistake samadhi for self-realization. Samadhi can be created at will, with focus. Self-realization has nothing to do with what you do with your focus. It can go hand in hand with samadhi or not. In the past I used to say 'prior to mind' instead of 'acausal' or 'not an experience'. I think the 'acausal' term just stuck after reading a little more U.G. It doesn't really matter what words you use. It's all pointing to the same fact that mind cannot touch it, and therefore what we are dealing with here is basically the 'unthinkable'. If you've got some new and better terms, I'm all ears. If samadhi is created by will, then it is not permanent. Samadhi is kinda natural. Babies and little children spend most of their time in samadhi without out doing special meditation. Nevertheless, it is an experience. Self-realization, as the term is usually used, just means seeing the false as false and the real as real, i.e seeing thru the false structure of self-hood, doership, volition etc. and the entire existential questions stuff. There isn't actually anything you can write home about. The result, however, can be all kinds of experiences, when mind gets informed (as Enigma usually says), and that's what you can write home about and what seekers can understand and try to re-create by exactly following your footsteps. That's how paths and practices are created. But there's no grantee that any path or practice will lead you to self-realization. Just look at the statistics, how many followed a path or practice and how many self-realized beings came out of it? I say the number is so small that it's statistically irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2015 3:06:54 GMT -5
Ha ha. UG will make you crazy. You can take a look into the U.G. thread if you like. There are some quotes about acausal and natural state and such.
|
|