Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 8:17:11 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of Zen at all. Of course there is humility, but I say what I know and I'm not afraid of that because I know what I am. Those caught up in behavioral conventions of what they deem to be acceptable in the hushed world of spirituality need to get out more. Despite the screen name I use I am not a fan of Zen either, and I have no objection to the kind of confidence that comes from knowing what one IS. What I'm pointing to has nothing to do with ideas about behavior or conventions of any kind. As for "the hushed world of spirituality," a majority of knowledgeable posters have noted that this can be a kind of esoteric escape, and they have repeatedly emphasized that deep understanding fully embraces the romping and stomping of ordinary life as well as sitting in silence. If there is any sting from what I posted, take a look. Otherwise, forget it. Not at all. I very much appreciate your comments.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 18, 2015 8:17:45 GMT -5
Vedanta is an ancient tradition, far older than Zen. It has distinguished aspects of the spiritual path that no other tradition has come close to. Zen discusses only two kinds of Samadhi, but Vedanta masters refer to three times that many, and a few masters go even farther than this. Those distinctions are not so important, but what they point to is worth contemplating. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is what Zen refers to as "the dropping off of body and mind," and it is an extremely deep state of unity consciousness, but an individual can enter this samadhi every day for fifty years and still get no closer to attaining sahaja samadhi, which Ramana called "the highest." I prefer to call it "flow." Any thought of specialness, uniqueness, or attainment is something that needs to be discarded as quickly as possible. If a Zen master read some of the posts on this thread, she would say, "Bring me some soap and water." It is what OHC was pointing to with his "stink" comment. The very title of this thread is the exact opposite of what the phrase "sahaja samadhi" is pointing to. Any efforting to attain anything is an indication that something is amiss, and any statement implying specialness or special attainment falls into the same category. Being an ordinary person is not such a bad thing, but thinking that one has attained anything unusual or extraordinary is. True attainment results in deep humility and a willingness to be considered a total fool. I've read your posts, so I know that you will see where these words are pointing. How can there be humility in SR? Not possible. Also, I don't see where anything that Sat and I are talking about is an indication of effort to attain. Life is flowing naturally, effortlessly. I'm with Sat here where he says he's not a big fan of Zen. Most Zen peeps are stuck believing that physicality is fundamental - their focus is brought to immediate experience of the sense, but not to Self). Sure they work on transcendence of mind, but even this becomes a very convoluted, round-about way that more often than not leads to more confusion than clarity. A lot of Zen folk get so muddled up in their own mind games they never find Self. I started this thread to indicate that along with SR comes actual life change, not to brag. People who think I'm bragging are looking for something that's not there. I suspect that Sat will take a look, but I doubt that you will. Your response to my earlier questions was honest, but it revealed that sahaja samadhi has not yet been attained. One more step is necessary, and that step is not up to you. It can only occur through grace. If you dismiss what is being pointed to, it will be, as all else, perfectly so.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 18, 2015 8:32:14 GMT -5
If everyone is looking for the end of suffering, then if there is an end of suffering, can it not be spoken about by someone who is no longer suffering? It can be, but this is where the ice gets very thin. It is far better to point from solid ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 8:33:18 GMT -5
How can there be humility in SR? Not possible. Also, I don't see where anything that Sat and I are talking about is an indication of effort to attain. Life is flowing naturally, effortlessly. I'm with Sat here where he says he's not a big fan of Zen. Most Zen peeps are stuck believing that physicality is fundamental - their focus is brought to immediate experience of the sense, but not to Self). Sure they work on transcendence of mind, but even this becomes a very convoluted, round-about way that more often than not leads to more confusion than clarity. A lot of Zen folk get so muddled up in their own mind games they never find Self. I started this thread to indicate that along with SR comes actual life change, not to brag. People who think I'm bragging are looking for something that's not there. I suspect that Sat will take a look, but I doubt that you will. Your response to my earlier questions was honest, but it revealed that sahaja samadhi has not yet been attained. One more step is necessary, and that step is not up to you. It can only occur through grace. If you dismiss what is being pointed to, it will be, as all else, perfectly so. This is known/knowing. Perfectly so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 9:01:28 GMT -5
If everyone is looking for the end of suffering, then if there is an end of suffering, can it not be spoken about by someone who is no longer suffering? It can be, but this is where the ice gets very thin. It is far better to point from solid ground. The ice only gets thin for those who think they need skates.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 18, 2015 9:25:19 GMT -5
I suspect that Sat will take a look, but I doubt that you will. Your response to my earlier questions was honest, but it revealed that sahaja samadhi has not yet been attained. One more step is necessary, and that step is not up to you. It can only occur through grace. If you dismiss what is being pointed to, it will be, as all else, perfectly so. This is known/knowing. Perfectly so. It might be worth re-reading your response to my two earlier questions. Most people don't even know what nirvikalpa Samadhi is, but you do. Read what you wrote following your first answer. As we both know, nirvikalpa samadhi is transitory, but there is no gradual transition from that into sahaja samadhi. I'm a nobody, so you might want to check out what Ramana says about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 9:49:54 GMT -5
This is known/knowing. Perfectly so. It might be worth re-reading your response to my two earlier questions. Most people don't even know what nirvikalpa Samadhi is, but you do. Read what you wrote following your first answer. As we both know, nirvikalpa samadhi is transitory, but there is no gradual transition from that into sahaja samadhi. I'm a nobody, so you might want to check out what Ramana says about this. Ramana said that sahaja samadhi was permanent. He would sit for hours sometimes totally absorbed in the Self. At other times he was actively involved with his devotees or cutting vegetables in the kitchen etc. He said his absorption was a such a strong pull. But as time went on he spent less time absorbed in samadhi. But he would say that whether just absorbed or engaged in activity Self was always totally dominant and had been since he realized in his uncles house when he was 16 years old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 10:03:38 GMT -5
This is known/knowing. Perfectly so. It might be worth re-reading your response to my two earlier questions. Most people don't even know what nirvikalpa Samadhi is, but you do. Read what you wrote following your first answer. As we both know, nirvikalpa samadhi is transitory, but there is no gradual transition from that into sahaja samadhi. I'm a nobody, so you might want to check out what Ramana says about this. No, more reading is not required. What you all don't seem to notice is that you are a dog chasing it's tail. Mind, in the form of this forum, has you so entranced that you can't see your own delusion. Round round you go, all the while missing Reality. Of course mind will convince you otherwise, as its survival depends upon the constant procreation of thought. I'm not sure how you will break out of the vortex you're in, but good luck to you.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 18, 2015 10:12:03 GMT -5
It might be worth re-reading your response to my two earlier questions. Most people don't even know what nirvikalpa Samadhi is, but you do. Read what you wrote following your first answer. As we both know, nirvikalpa samadhi is transitory, but there is no gradual transition from that into sahaja samadhi. I'm a nobody, so you might want to check out what Ramana says about this. Ramana said that sahaja samadhi was permanent. He would sit for hours sometimes totally absorbed in the Self. At other times he was actively involved with his devotees or cutting vegetables in the kitchen etc. He said his absorption was a such a strong pull. But as time went on he spent less time absorbed in samadhi. But he would say that whether just absorbed or engaged in activity Self was always totally dominant and had been since he realized in his uncles house when he was 16 years old. I totally agree, understand, and fully concur, but read what Roy wrote in response to my second question. Do you think that this is how Ramana would have answered that question?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 18, 2015 11:06:36 GMT -5
If everyone is looking for the end of suffering, then if there is an end of suffering, can it not be spoken about by someone who is no longer suffering? It can be, but this is where the ice gets very thin. It is far better to point from solid ground. Ah but, Satchi is speaking from a place where the idea of 'falling through thin ice' is no longer an issue. The end of suffering/abiding bliss he speaks of only comes when 'fear of suffering itself' falls away...when there is no longer 'anything' at all to lose.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2015 14:26:58 GMT -5
Vedanta is an ancient tradition, far older than Zen. It has distinguished aspects of the spiritual path that no other tradition has come close to. Zen discusses only two kinds of Samadhi, but Vedanta masters refer to three times that many, and a few masters go even farther than this. Those distinctions are not so important, but what they point to is worth contemplating. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is what Zen refers to as "the dropping off of body and mind," and it is an extremely deep state of unity consciousness, but an individual can enter this samadhi every day for fifty years and still get no closer to attaining sahaja samadhi, which Ramana called "the highest." I prefer to call it "flow." Any thought of specialness, uniqueness, or attainment is something that needs to be discarded as quickly as possible. If a Zen master read some of the posts on this thread, she would say, "Bring me some soap and water." It is what OHC was pointing to with his "stink" comment. The very title of this thread is the exact opposite of what the phrase "sahaja samadhi" is pointing to. Any efforting to attain anything is an indication that something is amiss, and any statement implying specialness or special attainment falls into the same category. Being an ordinary person is not such a bad thing, but thinking that one has attained anything unusual or extraordinary is. True attainment results in deep humility and a willingness to be considered a total fool. I've read your posts, so I know that you will see where these words are pointing. I'm not a fan of Zen at all. Of course there is humility, but I say what I know and I'm not afraid of that because I know what I am. Those caught up in behavioral conventions of what they deem to be acceptable in the hushed world of spirituality need to get out more. The expectation of perpetugasm can be just such a behavioral convention.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2015 14:31:32 GMT -5
How can there be humility in SR? How can there be arrogance?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2015 14:34:18 GMT -5
If everyone is looking for the end of suffering, then if there is an end of suffering, can it not be spoken about by someone who is no longer suffering? This speaking necessarily has at it's core an idea of what you are. Of course it can be spoken about, but can you discern what the nature of this speech necessarily has to be?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 18, 2015 15:27:17 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of Zen at all. Of course there is humility, but I say what I know and I'm not afraid of that because I know what I am. Those caught up in behavioral conventions of what they deem to be acceptable in the hushed world of spirituality need to get out more. The expectation of perpetugasm can be just such a behavioral convention. The very fact that you use such a term (one that specifically references a physically based kind of feeling of bodily pleasure) to describe what others are terming bliss/peace/joy, indicates that you're not understanding what is actually being referred to. And please note; It's not 'expectations' that are being talked about, but rather, the sharing of actual experience.... Not so much what 'should' happen, or what can be expected to happen, but rather, what Is happening.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 18, 2015 15:45:35 GMT -5
It might be worth re-reading your response to my two earlier questions. Most people don't even know what nirvikalpa Samadhi is, but you do. Read what you wrote following your first answer. As we both know, nirvikalpa samadhi is transitory, but there is no gradual transition from that into sahaja samadhi. I'm a nobody, so you might want to check out what Ramana says about this. Ramana said that sahaja samadhi was permanent. He would sit for hours sometimes totally absorbed in the Self. At other times he was actively involved with his devotees or cutting vegetables in the kitchen etc. He said his absorption was a such a strong pull. But as time went on he spent less time absorbed in samadhi. But he would say that whether just absorbed or engaged in activity Self was always totally dominant and had been since he realized in his uncles house when he was 16 years old. Sat: Before responding too quickly, please ponder these two statements carefully: 1. Roy wrote, "I am, as Ramana as my gauge, not permanently (unintermittently) 'in' Sahaja." 2. Ramana said that sahaja samadhi is permanent. I can understand why someone might think that intermittent samadhi might eventually evolve into sahaja, but that is not what happens. Any samadhi that is not permanent NOW is NOT sahaja no matter what anyone might imagine. It may be nirvikalpa samadhi or other lesser samadhis, but it is not sahaja. Notice that in the quote you posted Ramana claimed that WHETHER ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY or absorbed, Self was always totally dominant, AND HAD BEEN SINCE HE REALIZED (at the age of 16). He was not talking about some gradual change over time. When it happens, if it happens, it happens suddenly. Up to a single point in time there is "me" going into and out of various states of mind, but in the next moment that is over and done with. This is what Reefs has been constantly pointing to with different words. Any samadhi that does not continue uninterruptedly, is not sahaja.
|
|