|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2015 3:10:47 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. Are you quoting from google again? I haven't met many who actually fell into the non-duality trap. But I have met plenty who have fallen into the anti-non-duality trap. Both fallacies are the result of too much thinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 3:16:56 GMT -5
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. I wouldn't say babies are in samadhi, just a bit less conditioned than adults. You are right. There is no guarantee that a practice will have a particular result. But what do you think seeing through the false structure of falsehood is. It is really nothing but being as you are without conditioning, internal conflicts and fear. Objects of the world still appear. Problems still appear. But they no longer make an impression. The wave is so small compared with the ocean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 3:21:16 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. Are you quoting from google again? I haven't met many who actually fell into the non-duality trap. But I have met plenty who have fallen into the anti-non-duality trap. Both fallacies are the result of too much thinking. No I am not quoting from Google, but if I was you would still just be reading words on a screen. Good advice though - Stop Thinking!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 3:22:51 GMT -5
Oh believe me. There are many who fall into the non duality trap.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Mar 5, 2015 3:35:36 GMT -5
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. I wouldn't say babies are in samadhi, just a bit less conditioned than adults. You are right. There is no guarantee that a practice will have a particular result. But what do you think seeing through the false structure of falsehood is. It is really nothing but being as you are without conditioning, internal conflicts and fear. Objects of the world still appear. Problems still appear. But they no longer make an impression. The wave is so small compared with the ocean.Hi, you also wrote (for real peace): "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." Is this why it is said that emptiness is not dull/dead, etc? (I'm not sure emptiness is exactly the right word)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 3:52:43 GMT -5
I wouldn't say babies are in samadhi, just a bit less conditioned than adults. You are right. There is no guarantee that a practice will have a particular result. But what do you think seeing through the false structure of falsehood is. It is really nothing but being as you are without conditioning, internal conflicts and fear. Objects of the world still appear. Problems still appear. But they no longer make an impression. The wave is so small compared with the ocean.Hi, you also wrote (for real peace): "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." Is this why it is said that emptiness is not dull/dead, etc? (I'm not sure emptiness is exactly the right word) Emptiness is exactly the right word which I should have added to my list. It's talked about a lot in Buddhism. It really means the same thing as the Self in the Vedic tradition. Emptiness is not dull or dead. It is both nothing (formless) and everything (form) that is why it is all possible expressions. You can also say that emptiness is the non dual state because there is no objectification of any kind. You cannot get away from the fact that you are in a human body. There is no contradiction within non duality to say that a personal aspect appears. It is the non attachment to it which is freedom from bondage. To say otherwise is just philosophical wordplay and bears no relation to actual experience. Those who fear to admit it are afraid of letting go of what they consider to be the Holy Grail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 3:58:41 GMT -5
Ha ha. UG will make you crazy. What's wrong with UG? What's the fault you find in him?
|
|
|
Post by zin on Mar 5, 2015 4:01:59 GMT -5
Hi, you also wrote (for real peace): "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." Is this why it is said that emptiness is not dull/dead, etc? (I'm not sure emptiness is exactly the right word) Emptiness is exactly the right word which I should have added to my list. It's talked about a lot in Buddhism. It really means the same thing as the Self in the Vedic tradition. Emptiness is not dull or dead. It is both nothing (formless) and everything (form) that is why it is all possible expressions. You can also say that emptiness is the non dual state because there is no objectification of any kind. You cannot get away from the fact that you are in a human body. There is no contradiction within non duality to say that a personal aspect appears. It is the non attachment to it which is freedom from bondage. To say otherwise is just philosophical wordplay and bears no relation to actual experience. Those who fear to admit it are afraid of letting go of what they consider to be the Holy Grail. Thanks, I don't know about Buddhism much. About non-attachment to form I used to think everything would blur, 'world' would be a homogeneous soup, but it doesn't feel so (although I'm not 'self-realized'). People are more real and it feels like everybody I know has always been here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 4:04:41 GMT -5
Ha ha. UG will make you crazy. What's wrong with UG? What's the fault you find in him? No nothing wrong with UG at all gopal. I was just thinking that his books can be a difficult read that is all. Just because of the way he writes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 4:14:21 GMT -5
Emptiness is exactly the right word which I should have added to my list. It's talked about a lot in Buddhism. It really means the same thing as the Self in the Vedic tradition. Emptiness is not dull or dead. It is both nothing (formless) and everything (form) that is why it is all possible expressions. You can also say that emptiness is the non dual state because there is no objectification of any kind. You cannot get away from the fact that you are in a human body. There is no contradiction within non duality to say that a personal aspect appears. It is the non attachment to it which is freedom from bondage. To say otherwise is just philosophical wordplay and bears no relation to actual experience. Those who fear to admit it are afraid of letting go of what they consider to be the Holy Grail. Thanks, I don't know about Buddhism much. About non-attachment to form I used to think everything would blur, 'world' would be a homogeneous soup, but it doesn't feel so (although I'm not 'self-realized'). People are more real and it feels like everybody I know has always been here. Well that's a good point. Even though we can say that whatever is changing, or appearing and disappearing is impermanent and therefore unreal, compared with the unchanging unboundedness of the Self, which is the only reality, nevertheless this transient reality does appear to have a fresh, vibrant, pulsating alive quality about it as it spontaneously arises from silence. If the Self is the absolute, then it must also includes the relative. The Self is also world which arises from consciousness.. Without identification or attachment each moment burns brightly leaving no impression. This is freedom.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Mar 5, 2015 4:25:39 GMT -5
Although the phrase Roy uses about putting awareness on that which moves awareness is a little confusing, I don't think he is objectifying it. When you talk of losing interest in the mind game your starting point is exactly the same. There is an intention or effort in what you are both saying. But it is the natural tendency of mind to settle that becomes that which is effortless. If you dive into a pool it is only necessary to assume the correct position, but gravity does the rest. You cannot put yourself in the position of questioning someone because they are apparently doing something and you are not thereby creating the impression you are more authentic in your non doing because you speak of not applying yourself. You are also applying yourself. This is just wordplay. Perhaps the distinction is between prescription and description. "Lose interest in that mind game" really cannot be a prescription. How would one go about losing interest except to realize what is being pointed to in calling it a mind game? This is why the boundaries of practices are pointed out. Not to offer another practice of practice stopping, but to point to the realization that mind is playing yet another game to avoid noticing what is already here, now. There's no way around it, so the generalized view is sit there and remain alert and the mind will be cognizant of the thought and lose interest, follow something else and lose interest and soon enough will lose interest in thought on the whole...
|
|
|
Post by zin on Mar 5, 2015 4:27:30 GMT -5
Thanks, I don't know about Buddhism much. About non-attachment to form I used to think everything would blur, 'world' would be a homogeneous soup, but it doesn't feel so (although I'm not 'self-realized'). People are more real and it feels like everybody I know has always been here. Well that's a good point. Even though we can say that whatever is changing, or appearing and disappearing is impermanent and therefore unreal, compared with the unchanging unboundedness of the Self, which is the only reality, nevertheless this transient reality does appear to have a fresh, vibrant, pulsating alive quality about it as it spontaneously arises from silence. If the Self is the absolute, then it must also includes the relative. The Self is also world which arises from consciousness.. Without identification or attachment each moment burns brightly leaving no impression. This is freedom. Yes I understand. But I think I should've said something else instead of "people are more real".. It's not wrong but it's not exactly the thing that I wished to say. It's like I'm here, people are here; they are here as long as I am here.. But I know I am going into definitions, mind things. Perhaps I am trying to define a transition line between absolute and relative, but I don't know if such a thing exists. I have some feeling but I guess it is better not to write stories addition: "each moment burns" is a good expression of how it feels.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Mar 5, 2015 4:50:40 GMT -5
When effort is needed, effort will arise. None of the rules people insist on apply. The insight is to see what it is, in the way that it is, not according to what you want it to be
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 5, 2015 5:29:15 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. Ah, this is a good point. Yes, both the relative and absolute samadhi of Zen occurs by purposeful focus, and it is not permanent. I made the same point on another thread. All forms of unity consciousness that are transitory (relative Samadhi, absolute Samadhi, cosmic consciousness) are not SR. Sahaja samadhi, however, or flow, is what E. is calling "the natural state," and it is not transitory because it is not a state; it is simply what we are. It does not occur through any act of will. It occurs through what Reefs calls "an acausal event," or what some of us might call "grace." Suddenly, the obvious becomes obvious. It's as if the fog of thoughts dissipates in the clear light of day. For me, like Reefs, the idea of "becoming established in Samadhi" seemed to imply that it was the result of doing something ("I am establishing myself in a permanent state through lots of sustained effort), which is not what the phrase means. We can't establish ourself in what we already are; we can only BE what we are, so the phrase, as a pointer, is somewhat deceptive. I hadn't realized until yesterday that the phrase "sahaja samadhi" is what I call "flow," and the quote from Ramana spelled it out quite well. In flow, selfhood can appear, but, as Ramana said, "it is an empty husk" compared to the selfhood experienced prior to SR. Yes, we answer to a name, and we know that the name is what the body/mind is called, but there is no sense of there being a "someone in here" directing activities "out there." Inside and outside, as well as all hard edges (which are all imaginary), dissolve in the activity of life. Boundlessness, which is what we are, and which includes thoughts, is the natural state.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 5, 2015 5:31:56 GMT -5
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. I wouldn't say babies are in samadhi, just a bit less conditioned than adults. You are right. There is no guarantee that a practice will have a particular result. But what do you think seeing through the false structure of falsehood is. It is really nothing but being as you are without conditioning, internal conflicts and fear. Objects of the world still appear. Problems still appear. But they no longer make an impression. The wave is so small compared with the ocean. Yes.
|
|