Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 12:56:41 GMT -5
I associate the word "mind" with verbal discursive self-centered thinking and what is commonly called "the internal dialogue." During Samadhi there is no thinking, so that is why I said it is not of the mind--there is awareness but no content. During a CC experience selfhood is absent so there is no self-centered thinking. In fact, it is not known who or what is experiencing what is being experienced. Thoughts may appear, but it is not known who or what is thinking the thoughts; they just appear in emptiness. All kinds of strange things may happen during a CC experience that seem, in retrospect, as if the intellect was transcended or bypassed. It is as if the body/mind gets directly connected to some infinite power source that reveals all kinds of unusual things, and can reorganize existing thought structures. After a CC experience one may find that there are completely new understandings of various issues, and new ideas may appear that had never in the past been entertained. This is why I said that CC experiences are not of the mind. By mind, I am referring to the intellect and the usual reflective way that humans think about the world and their own existence. If you do not understand why the universe might remain poor after SR or become wealthy after SR, then I would suggest that you contemplate this issue. This question, alone, makes it clear that you have not had a particularly important realization about the nature of the cosmos. The answer to your question cannot be found through the intellect; it must be found at a deeper level of being. Simply bear this question in mind without thinking until the answer appears. You will probably be surprised by what you discover. FWIW, one does not revert back to anything after SR; one simply understands the cosmos in a totally different way than before. Actually you are speaking in a different way,but I am pretty sure you realized that you are not the doer but infinite, this realization frees you from trying to do anything rather you are allowing the infinite to do everything. I suppose if I ask you if you think you are infinite that would be a double bind question, so I won't ask it. But I will say if you identify with the infinite then that is simply a mind with an expanded understanding of what you believe you are and not a collapse and subsequent absence of identity. I'm hearing different versions of post SR, all of which involve a newer, fresher, lighter, expanded, sense of I-am-ness, or I-ness, or identity, which I find interesting in light of what should have collapsed with SR.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 1, 2015 13:00:26 GMT -5
The first statement you made is simply false. It is possible to fully realize what you are and yet continue to perceive the world through an individuated perspective. The relative and the absolute are one and the same. The Infinite perceives Itself through every living creature. Humans, however, can realize what's going on (we could call it "SEEING THE BIG PICTURE") and know that they know. What will happen after SR is unknowable in advance. FWIW, Tolle recently said in an interview that he cares nothing about money, and that in the future the money accumulating in his accounts might be used to build a retreat facility or create an educational foundation. Tenka is saying that if you go from SR back to a new and improved identity with an expanded understanding of the cosmos it is not SR. It is a mind with an expanded understanding of the cosmos. The collapse of identity doesn't result in a new expanded sense of I-am-ness, because there is no you in any objective form to identify with. SR is Self-realization. Call it THAT-realization, or Self-realization, or God-realization, or whatever you wish. If THAT hasn't been realized, then at least one more step is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 1, 2015 13:01:26 GMT -5
I associate the word "mind" with verbal discursive self-centered thinking and what is commonly called "the internal dialogue." During Samadhi there is no thinking, so that is why I said it is not of the mind--there is awareness but no content. During a CC experience selfhood is absent so there is no self-centered thinking. In fact, it is not known who or what is experiencing what is being experienced. Thoughts may appear, but it is not known who or what is thinking the thoughts; they just appear in emptiness. All kinds of strange things may happen during a CC experience that seem, in retrospect, as if the intellect was transcended or bypassed. It is as if the body/mind gets directly connected to some infinite power source that reveals all kinds of unusual things, and can reorganize existing thought structures. After a CC experience one may find that there are completely new understandings of various issues, and new ideas may appear that had never in the past been entertained. This is why I said that CC experiences are not of the mind. By mind, I am referring to the intellect and the usual reflective way that humans think about the world and their own existence. If you do not understand why the universe might remain poor after SR or become wealthy after SR, then I would suggest that you contemplate this issue. This question, alone, makes it clear that you have not had a particularly important realization about the nature of the cosmos. The answer to your question cannot be found through the intellect; it must be found at a deeper level of being. Simply bear this question in mind without thinking until the answer appears. You will probably be surprised by what you discover. FWIW, one does not revert back to anything after SR; one simply understands the cosmos in a totally different way than before. Actually you are speaking in a different way,but I am pretty sure you realized that you are not the doer but infinite, this realization frees you from trying to do anything rather you are allowing the infinite to do everything. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 1, 2015 13:04:53 GMT -5
Actually you are speaking in a different way,but I am pretty sure you realized that you are not the doer but infinite, this realization frees you from trying to do anything rather you are allowing the infinite to do everything. I suppose if I ask you if you think you are infinite that would be a double bind question, so I won't ask it. But I will say if you identify with the infinite then that is simply a mind with an expanded understanding of what you believe you are and not a collapse and subsequent absence of identity. I'm hearing different versions of post SR, all of which involve a newer, fresher, lighter, expanded, sense of I-am-ness, or I-ness, or identity, which I find interesting in light of what should have collapsed with SR. A realization is a realization; a realization is not an identification. There is a difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 13:05:06 GMT -5
Actually you are speaking in a different way,but I am pretty sure you realized that you are not the doer but infinite, this realization frees you from trying to do anything rather you are allowing the infinite to do everything. I suppose if I ask you if you think you are infinite that would be a double bind question, so I won't ask it. But I will say if you identify with the infinite then that is simply a mind with an expanded understanding of what you believe you are and not a collapse and subsequent absence of identity. I'm hearing different versions of post SR, all of which involve a newer, fresher, lighter, expanded, sense of I-am-ness, or I-ness, or identity, which I find interesting in light of what should have collapsed with SR. Whatever zendancer speaks is not a problem but the way he speaks is bit different, he meant to say the consciousness identifies itself as a person thinks as a center of action and he understood that he(the person he imagine himself to be is not the doer), but he doesn't want to split himself into two aspect but it's apparent that two different aspects are in play the reason is we are experiencing the perception not creating so it's pretty clear that impersonal level of consciousness creates, personal level of consciousness experiences, first one is the doer not the second one, but what he does is, he is unnecessarily attaching these two into single entity, but still he clearly knows the truth that he(the person he thinks himself to be) is not the doer, even I too know this truth, but I believe two separate aspects are clearly into the play.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 1, 2015 13:07:19 GMT -5
doh .. quoting myself instead of editing .. must be the noise in my head . (** straight face **)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 13:07:29 GMT -5
Tenka is saying that if you go from SR back to a new and improved identity with an expanded understanding of the cosmos it is not SR. It is a mind with an expanded understanding of the cosmos. The collapse of identity doesn't result in a new expanded sense of I-am-ness, because there is no you in any objective form to identify with. SR is Self-realization. Call it THAT-realization, or Self-realization, or God-realization, or whatever you wish. If THAT hasn't been realized, then at least one more step is necessary. Yes, I agree, that's why it's called Self-Realization and not Loss of Self-Realization. That's what I've been trying to clarify. SR for you is realizing what you are and consequently what you are not. Where as what I am referring to can't be called Self-Realization because it involves some how or other the collapse of self-identification in any objective or non-objective form. Maybe I'll call it SR without Self...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 13:18:16 GMT -5
I suppose if I ask you if you think you are infinite that would be a double bind question, so I won't ask it. But I will say if you identify with the infinite then that is simply a mind with an expanded understanding of what you believe you are and not a collapse and subsequent absence of identity. I'm hearing different versions of post SR, all of which involve a newer, fresher, lighter, expanded, sense of I-am-ness, or I-ness, or identity, which I find interesting in light of what should have collapsed with SR. A realization is a realization; a realization is not an identification. There is a difference. I agree, but I'm talking about SR in terms of identity pre-SR and identity post-SR, not the realization itself.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 1, 2015 13:18:40 GMT -5
free speech or slander? I vote the latter. I (sincerely) thought you were asking what the general tone of conversations should be on the forum.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 1, 2015 13:19:21 GMT -5
O.k. let's hear your theory about that. Why is that a good thing? I think when peeps study this master and that master and study zen this and zen that, then they have a mindful of knowledge that is not of their own direct experience . One snippet of niz that I remember (if it is niz) he said .. put this book down and go find it out for your self . Don't get me wrong, I find reading this and reading that to be a comfort at times when something resonates or something empowers you . Andy listed a Bashir video some time ago and while I was off work last week I had the time to listen to a few video clips and enjoyed some of his messages, when I first awakened I was introduced to a few teachings of white eagle (a native american indian guide) speaking through a channel, where his message is full of hope and empowerment . So I have dipped my toe in here and there when needs be, butt I am not really interested in studying other teachers / masters . I don't feel the need . I've read Tolle, Niz, Adya and been exposed to a few others from the forums and they all say the same thing: don't get attached to these words, don't believe what I write, go find out for yourself. Adya actually went so far as to describe a particular kind of seeker who will idolize his teacher with an internal dialog: "here, you keep my treasure for me for awhile. Just stay up there on that pedestal and be enlightened so I can go off and live my life as a peep, ok?". Everyone is going to take away something different from a teachers words, but of course there are some similarities because groups of people share certain characteristics. It's true that a typical seeker MO is a large spiritual library, but inferring dependence from interest in a teachers material is definitely a misconception. Also, after the search ends, it's only the orientation toward what was learned that changes. What I wrote once was that all the best maps have "burn this map" written at the destination point, but if someone feels the need to literally burn their books .. well, then you can infer something about their state of mind and in my opinion it's that they're involved in self-deception.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 13:19:32 GMT -5
SR is Self-realization. Call it THAT-realization, or Self-realization, or God-realization, or whatever you wish. If THAT hasn't been realized, then at least one more step is necessary. Yes, I agree, that's why it's called Self-Realization and not Loss of Self-Realization. That's what I've been trying to clarify. SR for you is realizing what you are and consequently what you are not. Where as what I am referring to can't be called Self-Realization because it involves some how or other the collapse of self-identification in any objective or non-objective form. Maybe I'll call it SR without Self... He is talking about identifying the correct doer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 13:21:57 GMT -5
Yes, I agree, that's why it's called Self-Realization and not Loss of Self-Realization. That's what I've been trying to clarify. SR for you is realizing what you are and consequently what you are not. Where as what I am referring to can't be called Self-Realization because it involves some how or other the collapse of self-identification in any objective or non-objective form. Maybe I'll call it SR without Self... He is talking about identifying the correct doer. Yeah, I think so too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 13:23:19 GMT -5
A realization is a realization; a realization is not an identification. There is a difference. I agree, but I'm talking about SR in terms of identity pre-SR and identity post-SR, not the realization itself. After SR,you would not be finding any of these things 'all of which involve a newer, fresher, lighter, expanded, sense of I-am-ness, or I-ness, or identity, ' but you would be knowing that you are not the doer of your action, so post-SR you would be knowing that you are not the doer. It just collapses the idea of who is the doer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 13:25:00 GMT -5
He is talking about identifying the correct doer. Yeah, I think so too. I don't think you are understanding what he is talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 13:32:02 GMT -5
I don't think you are understanding what he is talking about. I don't understand what he is talking about because I agreed with you?
|
|