zendancer - Tess once told me that she was depressed. This was after her SR. So apparently it's possible to be SR and depressed? What do you think?
I'm not SR, but do believe (just an oppinion) that a state where some depression was not "available" would be pretty thin tea.
Well, if SR folks can get cancer, then they also can fall into depression because every illness has an emotional cause. And the cause of your emotions can be found in your focus. This applies to everyone, no matter if SR or not SR. That's why this alignment business is so important.
What I found in 'just sitting' or the observational practices is, the mind left alone will tend toward its obstacles, and keep returning to them, as that probably requires some attention, but if a person can just be with it without getting all involved with it, such psychological issues unravel and lessen in being 'disturbing', and in a fairly short time, they stop being an issue, and the mind goes on to the next obstacle. The process starts to accelerate and things can come up one after another, which can become pretty relentless, so we often see people undertake a spiritual journey, and then experience significant trauma stemming from past emotional blocks. The point is, one can't avoid what is already there, and coming into alignment is basically the dissolution of these, but it's being able to sit as it all arises and remain still and poised, which will soon bring a person to their current limitations.
zendancer - Tess once told me that she was depressed. This was after her SR. So apparently it's possible to be SR and depressed? What do you think?
I'm not SR, but do believe (just an oppinion) that a state where some depression was not "available" would be pretty thin tea.
Well, if SR folks can get cancer, then they also can fall into depression because every illness has an emotional cause. And the cause of your emotions can be found in your focus. This applies to everyone, no matter if SR or not SR. That's why this alignment business is so important.
Reefs: I'm curious how far this idea goes. Do A-H people think that someone in alignment could work with ebola patients without protective gear and not contract that disease? Do they think that children who catch a contagious disease do so because of an emotional cause?
zendancer - Tess once told me that she was depressed. This was after her SR. So apparently it's possible to be SR and depressed? What do you think?
I'm not SR, but do believe (just an oppinion) that a state where some depression was not "available" would be pretty thin tea.
Sure, that's possible. SR does not make one inhuman; it only deals with penetrating the illusion of selfhood and seeing the big picture.
What comes to mind are the long ago fireside chats here at the ST campsite, discussing an odd utterance by Byron Katie taken out of context: that she "can't feel sad." On the one hand, my guess is that she's referring to equanimity -- noticing that feelings come and go, including emotional pain. On the other hand, imagining a life of not being able to feel sadness is characteristic of some sort dystopia. Context needed.
zendancer - Tess once told me that she was depressed. This was after her SR. So apparently it's possible to be SR and depressed? What do you think?
I'm not SR, but do believe (just an oppinion) that a state where some depression was not "available" would be pretty thin tea.
Well, if SR folks can get cancer, then they also can fall into depression because every illness has an emotional cause. And the cause of your emotions can be found in your focus. This applies to everyone, no matter if SR or not SR. That's why this alignment business is so important.
As I understand it, if depression is used in the non-physiological sense, and more of the dukkha or pervasive unsatisfactoriness sense, that sort of condition would vaporize with SR, because the cause no longer exists (belief in separate self...). I think this is what snagged Satch on the alignment thing. I'm thinking that Niz smoking is a clear case of this non-alignment happening after SR. His body was still driving a physically destructive behavior (via addiction). Whereas the case Satch relayed, where Ramana had an apparent fit when realizing some animal meat was prepared in the kitchen is more like feelings of irritation arising, expressed as anger, and passing, which would happen in the aligned as well...just speculatin as usual.
Well, if SR folks can get cancer, then they also can fall into depression because every illness has an emotional cause. And the cause of your emotions can be found in your focus. This applies to everyone, no matter if SR or not SR. That's why this alignment business is so important.
What I found in 'just sitting' or the observational practices is, the mind left alone will tend toward its obstacles, and keep returning to them, as that probably requires some attention, but if a person can just be with it without getting all involved with it, such psychological issues unravel and lessen in being 'disturbing', and in a fairly short time, they stop being an issue, and the mind goes on to the next obstacle. The process starts to accelerate and things can come up one after another, which can become pretty relentless, so we often see people undertake a spiritual journey, and then experience significant trauma stemming from past emotional blocks. The point is, one can't avoid what is already there, and coming into alignment is basically the dissolution of these, but it's being able to sit as it all arises and remain still and poised, which will soon bring a person to their current limitations.
Coming into alignment would be letting whatever arises, arise, and pass, without spinning it further with resistance/nonacceptance. So flow would be a state of equanimity.
I'm seeing the buddhist gradualist approach of developing equanimity (also other 'abodes' -- compassion, sympathetic joy, loving kindness) as being similar to this alignment thingy.
SR would be equivalent to Nirvana, a realization of no-self, cessation of dukkha (existential suffering). May or may not happen (perhaps gradualist approach creates conditions/ripens fruit/ for "accident" to happen). And I can imagine how -- post-Nirvana/SR --equanimity, etc. would be much easier to develop without a v-ger type of distraction/fuel. What am I missing here?
Last Edit: Jul 23, 2017 8:35:22 GMT -5 by maxdprophet
Thanks for taking the time to share that ZD. I can definitely rezz with what Tess writes and says about getting in touch with the absence. For me there was an intense experience (the "brass hasp" event) that led to a new normal during the months of equally intense existential questioning that eventually followed. I remember the day when I was very young and was told about the fact of death. I can time it to when I was 4 or 5 years old because we only lived in that apartment for a year my first year of Kindergarten. I bawled like the baby I was.
Does Tess write in her books or speak about encountering painful experiences after her realization? Events like accidents and illnesses of her own or death or other major misfortune of loved ones? The point someone might make about the inevitability of suffering is that these sort of painful events are an inevitability for all but someone with no personal ties who dies suddenly when they're healthy. Only someone out of touch with their emotions would deny that these sort of experiences are painful. I say that the natural state is not devoid of emotion, but rather, that the possibility for a depth of pathos that's a challenge to describe without poetry is quite unique to it.
From these forum dialogs, it seems to me that it's impossible to explain the distinction between that sort of pain, on one hand, and suffering, on the other, to someone still left with existential questions. The natural state isn't one that can ever be made sense of from the outside looking in.
As far as that presenter is concerned, there seems to me -- again, from these forum dialogs -- a very wide gap between SR and the ability to communicate and convey what SR is and means in any productive sense and terms. I hesitate to even use the term "teach" because SR can't be taught, and there's no leading someone to themselves. But in this context, the word fits. Perhaps that guy really is SR but just isn't a very effective spiritual teacher as yet. It's interesting reading old Zen literature because this issue seems to me to be quite central to it from the flip side of the coin -- "what has this guy/gal discovered?".
As far as anxiety goes, what I find is that these days I can pick up on the anxiety of other people around me, and sometimes, feel it quite viscerally. It's only in these past two years that I've come to understand where the source of that is when it happens.
One of the reasons that Tess went on a solitary retreat was to take a break from being a full-time care-giver for her husband who was dying of cancer (the retreat and replacement care-giver was a gift from a friend). Her husband died not too long after her retreat, but what I remember from her book was the matter-of-fact quality of everything that happened in her life after her spiritual search ended. I don't remember her mentioning anything particularly painful, but I'll re-read that section of the book and see if my memory is correct about that.
As for the presenter, I talked to him at length after his presentation trying to get a sense of what he had discovered. I ended up with more questions than answers. At one point I discussed Tess's realization, and her statement to me about what she had discovered--"I realized that I am This." His response to this was to say that he would be suspicious of anyone who would make such a statement. Haha! That's when I became convinced that we were not on the same book and page.
FWIW, I talked to Gangaji one day before my own spiritual search came to an end in 1999, and in my book I explain how that interaction may have fortuitously contributed to what happened the following day. Two years ago I again talked with Gangaji, and gave a report that I told her would be in the form of Paul Harvey's "the rest of the story." I told her what had happened on the day after our previous talk sixteen years earlier, and then described some of the things that had become clear in the aftermath of seeing through the illusion of the old "me." I told her that I had often been perplexed by Ramana's claim that sahaja samadhi was the highest form of samadhi until one day when I suddenly realized that what he was talking about was what I called "flow." I said to her, "The great thing about sahaja samadhi is that you can't fall out of it because it's not transient." She agreed, and we shared a lot of laughs. Ironically, what triggered the realization that sahaja samadhi and flow are pointing to the same thing--TNS--was a quote by Ramana that someone posted on this forum a few years ago (I think it was Satchitananda). In Arthur Osborne's book, "Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self Knowledge," sahaja samadhi is defined as, "Continuous samadhi not requiring trance or ecstasy but compatible with full use of the human faculties."
I once thought that the other fellow, who claims that suffering continues throughout life, was enlightened even though he had periodically said and done a few things that I found questionable. It was only when he spoke about suffering that I began to have much more serious doubts.
Wow, a nonduality speaker suspicious of oneness. hmmm ...
The natural state is a fascinating topic, that's for sure. It's one of about a dozen that I never would have dreamed of having much of an interest in at all before Tolle's brass hasp. "Perfection", anatta and the nature of volition are a few others. In fact, I was genuinely surprised at how all sorts of viewpoints had shifted when I got around to getting curious again. This is where my experience differ's with Tess, in that my exposure to oneness pointing had been relatively shallow until I read Tolle, so all of this was, conceptually speaking, quite a bit of a shock after the fact.
As far as sahaja samadhi and flow are concerned, I can see the parallel, sure. But I don't think I'm in flow all the time. I sure as hell wasn't in flow during and the weeks after a car accident this spring, and I never expect to be in flow in the weeks around April 15th of every year.
zendancer - Tess once told me that she was depressed. This was after her SR. So apparently it's possible to be SR and depressed? What do you think?
I'm not SR, but do believe (just an oppinion) that a state where some depression was not "available" would be pretty thin tea.
Sure, that's possible. SR does not make one inhuman; it only deals with penetrating the illusion of selfhood and seeing the big picture.
So would it be fair to draw a mental map to your understanding of sahaja samadhi that would make SR a necessary pre-condition, but not necessarily sufficient?
What I found in 'just sitting' or the observational practices is, the mind left alone will tend toward its obstacles, and keep returning to them, as that probably requires some attention, but if a person can just be with it without getting all involved with it, such psychological issues unravel and lessen in being 'disturbing', and in a fairly short time, they stop being an issue, and the mind goes on to the next obstacle. The process starts to accelerate and things can come up one after another, which can become pretty relentless, so we often see people undertake a spiritual journey, and then experience significant trauma stemming from past emotional blocks. The point is, one can't avoid what is already there, and coming into alignment is basically the dissolution of these, but it's being able to sit as it all arises and remain still and poised, which will soon bring a person to their current limitations.
Coming into alignment would be letting whatever arises, arise, and pass, without spinning it further with resistance/nonacceptance. So flow would be a state of equanimity.
I'm seeing the buddhist gradualist approach of developing equanimity (also other 'abodes' -- compassion, sympathetic joy, loving kindness) as being similar to this alignment thingy.
SR would be equivalent to Nirvana, a realization of no-self, cessation of dukkha (existential suffering). May or may not happen (perhaps gradualist approach creates conditions/ripens fruit/ for "accident" to happen). And I can imagine how -- post-Nirvana/SR --equanimity, etc. would be much easier to develop without a v-ger type of distraction/fuel. What am I missing here?
That seems likely with a few caveats. When a person practices something--being present, loving kindness, acceptance of what is, being silent, etc.--, s/he usually does so under the assumption that s/he is a person volitionally doing something in order to attain something. SR dispels that illusion. One sees, non-conceptually, that the conventional sense of personhood--"me"-- is an imaginary thought structure. S/he then realizes that that which sees, hears, feels, thinks, etc. is the entire process of reality--the Infinite-- manifesting through a particular body/mind. As far as I know, this is the only event that can lead to lasting equanimity. IOW, I don't think that lasting equanimity can be developed; it simply happens as a result of seeing the big picture. There can be transient equanimity prior to SR, but as long as one believes that s/he is a volitional entity, permanent equanimity is probably not possible. ITSW, many people have experienced flow as a transient experience, but a permanent state of flow seems to be dependent upon SR. Another factor that may play a part in this is the degree of one's internal silence, but that's a subject for a future discussion.
Well, if SR folks can get cancer, then they also can fall into depression because every illness has an emotional cause. And the cause of your emotions can be found in your focus. This applies to everyone, no matter if SR or not SR. That's why this alignment business is so important.
What I found in 'just sitting' or the observational practices is, the mind left alone will tend toward its obstacles, and keep returning to them, as that probably requires some attention, but if a person can just be with it without getting all involved with it, such psychological issues unravel and lessen in being 'disturbing', and in a fairly short time, they stop being an issue, and the mind goes on to the next obstacle. The process starts to accelerate and things can come up one after another, which can become pretty relentless, so we often see people undertake a spiritual journey, and then experience significant trauma stemming from past emotional blocks. The point is, one can't avoid what is already there, and coming into alignment is basically the dissolution of these, but it's being able to sit as it all arises and remain still and poised, which will soon bring a person to their current limitations.
If after SR all your beliefs and memories would have been obliterated, then there would be no need for this alignment stuff. But that's not the case. The basic personality obviously remains and with it all your memories and the basic social programming and habits. And so there's still a lot of potential for entertaining bogus beliefs or conflicting beliefs after SR. Just look at how Niz rationalized his smoking habit. So becoming conscious would also mean to become conscious of your core beliefs in everyday life.
Sure, that's possible. SR does not make one inhuman; it only deals with penetrating the illusion of selfhood and seeing the big picture.
So would it be fair to draw a mental map to your understanding of sahaja samadhi that would make SR a necessary pre-condition, but not necessarily sufficient?
That's an interesting question. I assumed that SR was the only necessary condition, but after talking with other people who claim to be SR, I've realized that some of them are not on the same book and page regarding that issue. FWIW, SS is continuous, and can be known to be continuous, even on April 15 or during any other high-stress or unusual period of time. I probably should have distinguished that from Ramana's perspective SS is equivalent to a permanent state of flow rather than equivalent to flow that may be transient. There is a significant difference.
Well, if SR folks can get cancer, then they also can fall into depression because every illness has an emotional cause. And the cause of your emotions can be found in your focus. This applies to everyone, no matter if SR or not SR. That's why this alignment business is so important.
Reefs: I'm curious how far this idea goes. Do A-H people think that someone in alignment could work with ebola patients without protective gear and not contract that disease? Do they think that children who catch a contagious disease do so because of an emotional cause?
Yes and yes. The emotional cause of cancer is powerlessness. The basic premise here is that your natural state is one of absolute well-being. You are the creator, or better: the attractor of your own experience. There is no assertion. No one else but you can create in your reality. And so you cannot catch a virus, the virus doesn't assert itself into your experience out of the blue, you attract it by becoming a vibrational match to it. In fact, according to A-H and Seth, you have some of the deadliest viruses in your body all the time. And you are doing just fine. So the virus, as all illnesses, is actually a tool that the body uses in order to get back into balance. There are no contagious diseases, there are only contagious thoughts and beliefs which then make you a match to certain diseases. You can see that clearly when epidemics or pandemics happen, especially in war-torn areas. Your inner state of being is your only true insurance against all possible odds. And the good thing about this is that your own emotions are always telling in real time how you are doing.
So would it be fair to draw a mental map to your understanding of sahaja samadhi that would make SR a necessary pre-condition, but not necessarily sufficient?
That's an interesting question. I assumed that SR was the only necessary condition, but after talking with other people who claim to be SR, I've realized that some of them are not on the same book and page regarding that issue. FWIW, SS is continuous, and can be known to be continuous, even on April 15 or during any other high-stress or unusual period of time. I probably should have distinguished that from Ramana's perspective SS is equivalent to a permanent state of flow rather than equivalent to flow that may be transient. There is a significant difference.
The difficulty with relating the natural state/ss is that it doesn't come and go, but it can only be described in terms of a state of mind and body.
There are some people I've corresponded with over the years that I have no doubt about with regard to SR. This is based on what I take their apperception to be as it applies over a wide range of topics. One primary "tell" is if they can discern where the intellect begins and ends in any given dialog. Often a dialog can start using abstractions with the purpose of bridging to pointing. One habit that almost every unconscious seeker who mistakes themselves as SR has is to apply logic and conclusions of mind to pointers and not recognize that even when it's brought to their attention.
There is one constant and specific commonality in terms of state of body/mind between the peeps who I trust on this matter, in more or less their own words, and it's a permanent end to the fear of death and existential dread. One common question/challenge to this is "well, how do you know it's permanent?". (** smiles **).
I can certainly imagine what the car accident and it's aftermath would have been like prior to the end of existential questioning, and it wouldn't have been pretty. But, flow, it wasn't. It was physically painful, a significant logistical disruption and a major downgrade in terms of my replacement vehicle. These assessments are all objective and dispassionate, and independent of my attachment to the car that was totaled -- to which I will freely admit.
This is just one example of a painful experience, in this case the effects ranged over several weeks. But, I'd only expect those peeps who I trust as SR to understand how the pain was endured free of suffering.
The way I'd describe what's always "there" is in terms of an absence, and the best way to convey that is in terms of a sort of lightness, an ephemeral gentleness that permeates and underlies what appears, even when those appearances are gnarly, jagged, loud and disruptive. The girl who ran the light and T-boned my Ford assumed 100% liability the second she got out of her car. I gave her a hug and thanked her for that. This didn't do anything to ease the intense pain in my neck at the time, but being free of worry as to the way that would play out likely contributed to it passing away over a few days without turning into anything serious. Now see, I wouldn't say I was grateful for her appearance, but unlike Job I need no explanation as to why it happened and have no illusions of myself as some sort of misfortunate one.
These types of explanations can ultimately never really hold water in any material sense if they're examined, questioned and dissected, but hopefully the example illustrates why I'd distinguish the natural state from flow.
Ha no just a funny example of some self referential thinking.
The Uber Natural State:
AKA "do the next thing 100%"
I was told if a croc is chasing you to run in zig zags, because they're very fast in short straight lines. Just like a parallel planer! So, running in zig zags is sorta like how you can mess with the parallel planers. Put out more than 2 dreams at the rate over or above 1.41 and you just send them into a different galaxy. It fries their circuits.
What I found in 'just sitting' or the observational practices is, the mind left alone will tend toward its obstacles, and keep returning to them, as that probably requires some attention, but if a person can just be with it without getting all involved with it, such psychological issues unravel and lessen in being 'disturbing', and in a fairly short time, they stop being an issue, and the mind goes on to the next obstacle. The process starts to accelerate and things can come up one after another, which can become pretty relentless, so we often see people undertake a spiritual journey, and then experience significant trauma stemming from past emotional blocks. The point is, one can't avoid what is already there, and coming into alignment is basically the dissolution of these, but it's being able to sit as it all arises and remain still and poised, which will soon bring a person to their current limitations.
If after SR all your beliefs and memories would have been obliterated, then there would be no need for this alignment stuff. But that's not the case. The basic personality obviously remains and with it all your memories and the basic social programming and habits. And so there's still a lot of potential for entertaining bogus beliefs or conflicting beliefs after SR. Just look at how Niz rationalized his smoking habit. So becoming conscious would also mean to become conscious of your core beliefs in everyday life.
Yep, we usually find when there's a real insight to self, there might be 'bench sitting' period such as Tolle's, but to me the self realisation is this self just as it is, with all its mentalities and emotional conditions. I think a person might learn that impurity can be the case without any aversion toward it, and regard it as a simple fact, I'm like this, but the ethic is apart from anyone's aversions and desires, so purity is quite regardless to something anyone wants, and in this context, that want is only producing impurity anyway, making it counterproductive unto itself. That's how one comes to see their volition become futile, which marks the surrender - albeit incomplete when it comes to the arisings which unsettle the mind's equanimity. I know we have meditation masters, at least they claim that station, but the only work is is to further stablise that balance of mind, so that harder impurities may pass as the violent storms that they raise, and higher energy levels be withstood. The former would predominate in the first instance, and the latter occur later on. This doesn't matter in the least, because whatever the experience may be, the practice is not experience, but equanimity for its apparent duration.
What I found in 'just sitting' or the observational practices is, the mind left alone will tend toward its obstacles, and keep returning to them, as that probably requires some attention, but if a person can just be with it without getting all involved with it, such psychological issues unravel and lessen in being 'disturbing', and in a fairly short time, they stop being an issue, and the mind goes on to the next obstacle. The process starts to accelerate and things can come up one after another, which can become pretty relentless, so we often see people undertake a spiritual journey, and then experience significant trauma stemming from past emotional blocks. The point is, one can't avoid what is already there, and coming into alignment is basically the dissolution of these, but it's being able to sit as it all arises and remain still and poised, which will soon bring a person to their current limitations.
Coming into alignment would be letting whatever arises, arise, and pass, without spinning it further with resistance/nonacceptance. So flow would be a state of equanimity.
I'm seeing the buddhist gradualist approach of developing equanimity (also other 'abodes' -- compassion, sympathetic joy, loving kindness) as being similar to this alignment thingy.
SR would be equivalent to Nirvana, a realization of no-self, cessation of dukkha (existential suffering). May or may not happen (perhaps gradualist approach creates conditions/ripens fruit/ for "accident" to happen). And I can imagine how -- post-Nirvana/SR --equanimity, etc. would be much easier to develop without a v-ger type of distraction/fuel. What am I missing here?
What we call a flow is a subtle experience of movement without any solidity, and this isn't the condition we call equanimity. 'Equanimity' refers to a state of pure awareness, and all that means being consciously aware without any reactivity - such as resistance, which you mention. That means, even when the experience is hard and solid replete with lumps blocking everything up, the person observes - 'this is the truth of the experience, as it is, as I experience it' - without accepting it, rejecting it, allowing it, resisting it. The mere, banal noticing of the experience is all that it is.
The development of equanimity in itself, as an intention raised from the desire for it, is impossible, for said desire is antithetical to equanimity. Rather if such desire should arise, one is conscious of it, and the nature of its objects. In essence, that which we call 'ego' is none other than a ball of reactivity, and self awareness in this regard is precisely setting the gaze on the ego. When the reactivity/activity comes to cessation, that's regarded as no-self. We often see people make claims of enlightenment, but then we see them behave in quite a reactive way, so we can tell they haven't really come to complete dissolution, and as long as these volitions continue a being will continue the rebirth cycle - as reactivity is the psychic energy which perpetuates an 'ego in time'. Upon the cessation of volition, time ceases. Of course the mind will now raise up in desire and want to know how to make the volition stop, but this arising is the volition, so one is conscious of such arisings, and the 'ego' simply can not slip by unawares.