|
Post by tenka on Oct 18, 2018 4:59:47 GMT -5
I am in training for the interrogation / mental torture yet to come .. I have a karate kid headband due for delivery anytime soon .. I will be ready This should be interesting. Are you ready for interrogation, Tenka? Let's start with your definition of SR. Headband on, 50 one hand press ups completed .. here goes . As Self refers to 'all that is' there has to be 'the being of all that is' and the only way that 'being' can be registered eventually is for self to be no more . The mind to be no more, this world to be no more, no observer, no witness . The 'being all that is', is not the actual realization of Self which for some doesn't make sense . The realization of Self is where 'what you are' of the mind / self is now aware of self being absent in the presence (said loosely) of being 'all that is' . This is why comparisons have been at the tip of my tongue of late to emphasise this point . There is the comparison of self / no self, the world, no world, mind, no mind etc . What one want's to conclude from this point onwards is each to their own but if one wants to say S.R. reflects seeing the self-hood mind body as of no real substance then one has to like said compare what is real and it becomes ever so problematic for peeps to prove that or explain that in any shape or form because whatever is said will be riddled with issues . Beyond mind, beingness of all that is, is beyond realness and beyond concepts of any nature, this is why we need to be clear of what is actually supposedly 'realized' . I say there is no realization that is what I refer to as S.R. that reflects anything that is not what you are . Peeps can obviously suggest that what is not permanent is not real or not what you are, but that is not a realization, that is a conclusion based upon many mindful aspects . In my eyes and as stated many times before the only thing I can say is that there is only what you are fundamentally and that is not an absolute truth. That is the only impression that I understood from 'beingness' and like you said referring to what we are as awareness or pure consciousness are just adding layers from the very off, it's understandably done because one likes to relate things to what we are as a starting point . Pure awareness, likened to the peace beyond understanding, unconditional love and such likes are all add ons that carry some weight but are not realized as such through 'being all that is' but through mindfully making sense of what you are beyond the thought of anything . So to be clear there isn't really a realization as such, there is 'beingness' and then there is an understanding of that and that is called or referred to as a realization, but the realization isn't an absolute Truth because beingness has no foundation of Truth, Truth is just another understanding associated with what is beyond .
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 18, 2018 8:34:26 GMT -5
As Self refers to 'all that is' there has to be 'the being of all that is' and the only way that 'being' can be registered eventually is for self to be no more . The mind to be no more, this world to be no more, no observer, no witness . The 'being all that is', is not the actual realization of Self which for some doesn't make sense . The realization of Self is where 'what you are' of the mind / self is now aware of self being absent in the presence (said loosely) of being 'all that is' . This is why comparisons have been at the tip of my tongue of late to emphasise this point . There is the comparison of self / no self, the world, no world, mind, no mind etc . What one want's to conclude from this point onwards is each to their own but if one wants to say S.R. reflects seeing the self-hood mind body as of no real substance then one has to like said compare what is real and it becomes ever so problematic for peeps to prove that or explain that in any shape or form because whatever is said will be riddled with issues . Beyond mind, beingness of all that is, is beyond realness and beyond concepts of any nature, this is why we need to be clear of what is actually supposedly 'realized' . I say there is no realization that is what I refer to as S.R. that reflects anything that is not what you are . Peeps can obviously suggest that what is not permanent is not real or not what you are, but that is not a realization, that is a conclusion based upon many mindful aspects . In my eyes and as stated many times before the only thing I can say is that there is only what you are fundamentally and that is not an absolute truth. That is the only impression that I understood from 'beingness' and like you said referring to what we are as awareness or pure consciousness are just adding layers from the very off, it's understandably done because one likes to relate things to what we are as a starting point . Pure awareness, likened to the peace beyond understanding, unconditional love and such likes are all add ons that carry some weight but are not realized as such through 'being all that is' but through mindfully making sense of what you are beyond the thought of anything . So to be clear there isn't really a realization as such, there is 'beingness' and then there is an understanding of that and that is called or referred to as a realization, but the realization isn't an absolute Truth because beingness has no foundation of Truth, Truth is just another understanding associated with what is beyond. Wow, thanks. That was very thorough and quite dense. I think it’s going to take me several posts to unpack this. I’ll do one paragraph at the time in order to make sure that I fully understand you. So lets start with this part here: As Self refers to 'all that is' there has to be 'the being of all that is' and the only way that 'being' can be registered eventually is for self to be no more . The mind to be no more, this world to be no more, no observer, no witness . First some definitions. Your definition of ‘Self’ as ‘All-That-Is’ is basically what we can all agree upon. So we don’t have to analyze this further. By 'the being of all that is' I assume this is what we call ‘substance’ or 'the ground of being'? And by ‘self’ you mean mind itself or the perspective of mind? And what does ‘this world’ mean? The world as self sees it? And ‘no observer no witness’ means no self as observer/witness?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 18, 2018 9:05:06 GMT -5
As Self refers to 'all that is' there has to be 'the being of all that is' and the only way that 'being' can be registered eventually is for self to be no more . The mind to be no more, this world to be no more, no observer, no witness . The 'being all that is', is not the actual realization of Self which for some doesn't make sense . The realization of Self is where 'what you are' of the mind / self is now aware of self being absent in the presence (said loosely) of being 'all that is' . This is why comparisons have been at the tip of my tongue of late to emphasise this point . There is the comparison of self / no self, the world, no world, mind, no mind etc . What one want's to conclude from this point onwards is each to their own but if one wants to say S.R. reflects seeing the self-hood mind body as of no real substance then one has to like said compare what is real and it becomes ever so problematic for peeps to prove that or explain that in any shape or form because whatever is said will be riddled with issues . Beyond mind, beingness of all that is, is beyond realness and beyond concepts of any nature, this is why we need to be clear of what is actually supposedly 'realized' . I say there is no realization that is what I refer to as S.R. that reflects anything that is not what you are . Peeps can obviously suggest that what is not permanent is not real or not what you are, but that is not a realization, that is a conclusion based upon many mindful aspects . In my eyes and as stated many times before the only thing I can say is that there is only what you are fundamentally and that is not an absolute truth. That is the only impression that I understood from 'beingness' and like you said referring to what we are as awareness or pure consciousness are just adding layers from the very off, it's understandably done because one likes to relate things to what we are as a starting point . Pure awareness, likened to the peace beyond understanding, unconditional love and such likes are all add ons that carry some weight but are not realized as such through 'being all that is' but through mindfully making sense of what you are beyond the thought of anything . So to be clear there isn't really a realization as such, there is 'beingness' and then there is an understanding of that and that is called or referred to as a realization, but the realization isn't an absolute Truth because beingness has no foundation of Truth, Truth is just another understanding associated with what is beyond. Wow, thanks. That was very thorough and quite dense. I think it’s going to take me several posts to unpack this. I’ll do one paragraph at the time in order to make sure that I fully understand you. So lets start with this part here: As Self refers to 'all that is' there has to be 'the being of all that is' and the only way that 'being' can be registered eventually is for self to be no more . The mind to be no more, this world to be no more, no observer, no witness . First some definitions. Your definition of ‘Self’ as ‘All-That-Is’ is basically what we can all agree upon. So we don’t have to analyze this further. By 'the being of all that is' I assume this is what we call ‘substance’ or 'the ground of being'? And by ‘self’ you mean mind itself or the perspective of mind? And what does ‘this world’ mean? The world as self sees it? And ‘no observer no witness’ means no self as observer/witness? The 'being of all that is' has nowt to do with substance at this point . This is beyond / prior to Consciousness / awareness / substance . I have only heard Bernadette Roberts speak of beyond self as beyond consciousness, there is just 'being what you are' beyond any thought / sense / awareness of that . It is impossible to relate too, I like to suggest that what we are is pure electricity and there is no feeling of that per se, no awareness of that, there is just that . I think again Bernadette Roberts speaks of there being music as an example and 'being' music rather than hearing the music . I haven't read much about her at all other than a few quotes but it is exactly that . This is why there is no observer or witness, if there is, there is reference to 'you' observing which is a mindful reflection, it's not the 'being what you are' that I am referring too . This beingness is not of the mind even though there is what you are being this or that of it . By self I mean a thought of yourself being this or that compared to no self / no thought of oneself . This world refers to our environment of the mind . Earth, the spirit world, the 5th. 6th, 7th dimensions and such likes . This world as one perceives it is a self reflection based upon self being a thought of oneself, which includes obviously one's sense of identity .This world is created and is present as a physical structure, we are making sense of what's here (which doesn't go down well as some peeps think creation = perception) which doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever . No observer no witness is when there is no self or this world / mind .
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 18, 2018 9:44:04 GMT -5
Wow, thanks. That was very thorough and quite dense. I think it’s going to take me several posts to unpack this. I’ll do one paragraph at the time in order to make sure that I fully understand you. So lets start with this part here: First some definitions. Your definition of ‘Self’ as ‘All-That-Is’ is basically what we can all agree upon. So we don’t have to analyze this further. By 'the being of all that is' I assume this is what we call ‘substance’ or 'the ground of being'? And by ‘self’ you mean mind itself or the perspective of mind? And what does ‘this world’ mean? The world as self sees it? And ‘no observer no witness’ means no self as observer/witness? The 'being of all that is' has nowt to do with substance at this point . This is beyond / prior to Consciousness / awareness / substance . I have only heard Bernadette Roberts speak of beyond self as beyond consciousness, there is just 'being what you are' beyond any thought / sense / awareness of that . It is impossible to relate too, I like to suggest that what we are is pure electricity and there is no feeling of that per se, no awareness of that, there is just that . I think again Bernadette Roberts speaks of there being music as an example and 'being' music rather than hearing the music . I haven't read much about her at all other than a few quotes but it is exactly that . This is why there is no observer or witness, if there is, there is reference to 'you' observing which is a mindful reflection, it's not the 'being what you are' that I am referring too . This beingness is not of the mind even though there is what you are being this or that of it . By self I mean a thought of yourself being this or that compared to no self / no thought of oneself . This world refers to our environment of the mind . Earth, the spirit world, the 5th. 6th, 7th dimensions and such likes . This world as one perceives it is a self reflection based upon self being a thought of oneself, which includes obviously one's sense of identity .This world is created and is present as a physical structure, we are making sense of what's here (which doesn't go down well as some peeps think creation = perception) which doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever . No observer no witness is when there is no self or this world / mind . So you actually mean quite literally no perception at all, not even non-conceptual perception? The 'being' music instead of hearing music analogy seems to me pointing to the end of the subject-object split though. Which means there is still perception happening. Here's an interview with Bernadette Roberts, maybe you can find some points you can agree with and then post it: awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/07/bernadette-roberts-interview.htmlOkay, then then we define self in the same way, too. So 'this world' then means the physical as well as the non-physical realm. Are you familiar with Seth's camouflage concept? Camouflage basically refers to the basic rules/laws of any given reality system as opposed to basic reality (as Seth calls it) itself which is prior to any camouflage but at the same time within the camouflage and actually the very fabric of the camouflage.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Oct 18, 2018 16:11:53 GMT -5
Wow, thanks. That was very thorough and quite dense. I think it’s going to take me several posts to unpack this. I’ll do one paragraph at the time in order to make sure that I fully understand you. So lets start with this part here: First some definitions. Your definition of ‘Self’ as ‘All-That-Is’ is basically what we can all agree upon. So we don’t have to analyze this further. By 'the being of all that is' I assume this is what we call ‘substance’ or 'the ground of being'? And by ‘self’ you mean mind itself or the perspective of mind? And what does ‘this world’ mean? The world as self sees it? And ‘no observer no witness’ means no self as observer/witness? The 'being of all that is' has nowt to do with substance at this point . This is beyond / prior to Consciousness / awareness / substance . I have only heard Bernadette Roberts speak of beyond self as beyond consciousness, there is just 'being what you are' beyond any thought / sense / awareness of that . It is impossible to relate too, I like to suggest that what we are is pure electricity and there is no feeling of that per se, no awareness of that, there is just that . I think again Bernadette Roberts speaks of there being music as an example and 'being' music rather than hearing the music . I haven't read much about her at all other than a few quotes but it is exactly that . This is why there is no observer or witness, if there is, there is reference to 'you' observing which is a mindful reflection, it's not the 'being what you are' that I am referring too . This beingness is not of the mind even though there is what you are being this or that of it . By self I mean a thought of yourself being this or that compared to no self / no thought of oneself . This world refers to our environment of the mind . Earth, the spirit world, the 5th. 6th, 7th dimensions and such likes . This world as one perceives it is a self reflection based upon self being a thought of oneself, which includes obviously one's sense of identity .This world is created and is present as a physical structure, we are making sense of what's here (which doesn't go down well as some peeps think creation = perception) which doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever . No observer no witness is when there is no self or this world / mind . Tenka I don't know much of Bernadette Roberts but as a child I was visited by sages and even at night a sage would appear in a nappy long hair a Hindu sage. Show me healing and then touch my heart on the right side and crown. I would feel the room go in to what can only be described as a stretched effect. And I would close my eyes to get my room back go within see the inner moon, stars ✨ the music and sounds go past certain regions worlds all with a different sound. Om and Hu were the first sounds and more flute like sounds and a still crystal lake a more beautiful sound. Each a world and region within. Only after being on the market and falling awake I came across many Bhakti sages who described these inner ripples of mind stages on the ocean of stillness. Real worlds yet unreal at the same time. Why Kabir talks about finding a true SatGuru as you may place yourself in one of these inner regions. Or with a swami gurus using the language of waking up too. In India the land is infested with false teachers ..... I'm sure I came across Teresa of Avila entering the castle the inner rooms and sounds too. But I do feel like I've found Being with Ian Wolstenholme He is in That, but also here too. But teaches with honesty. Talks on the domains of experiencing from a Western perspective. The needs of the body and emotions. Ramanas map won't work for me until I see him in work pick up a phone , or offload a lorry at work go home to his wife and children. As most people I know do. Apart from the Ashram antics the politics he must have had to put up with and of free service from devotees and rich donors who paid in. As he was saying my teachings are free for all. No True Guru charges but other people paid in for him to be able to say that. But as with most Ashrams as much as they say these teachings are free there are donors behind them footing the bill. I do feel he is That but his map won't sail most across in these times. Ramanas teachings won't do well as a map. The Western mind is more sophisticated has more problems so it needs a better map at pointing within. Eckhart is a better map and there will be more.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 18, 2018 22:43:47 GMT -5
This is one of the clearest paragraph, This is what I have been telling ever since I came here but very few grasped it. Well the problem is this isn't the end you still have come back down the mountain especially in the Western world and in the East as there is no such thing anymore after realisation and either go back to work or speak to a loved one. Using Ramanas map can be ok for some but also misleading for others. Why only a few awakened under his teachings, according to David Godman you can probably count them on your one hand. Will this map work for western students, is true for your wife and child Gopal are they an illusion? All that it means to say that they are illusion is that what they are not what they were once thought to be.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 18, 2018 22:46:23 GMT -5
Well the problem is this isn't the end you still have come back down the mountain especially in the Western world and in the East as there is no such thing anymore after realisation and either go back to work or speak to a loved one. Using Ramanas map can be ok for some but also misleading for others. Why only a few awakened under his teachings, according to David Godman you can probably count them on your one hand. Will this map work for western students, is true for your wife and child Gopal are they an illusion? All that it means to say that they are illusion is that what they are not what they were once thought to be. That's the excellent definition of illusion.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 19, 2018 2:01:08 GMT -5
The 'being of all that is' has nowt to do with substance at this point . This is beyond / prior to Consciousness / awareness / substance . I have only heard Bernadette Roberts speak of beyond self as beyond consciousness, there is just 'being what you are' beyond any thought / sense / awareness of that . It is impossible to relate too, I like to suggest that what we are is pure electricity and there is no feeling of that per se, no awareness of that, there is just that . I think again Bernadette Roberts speaks of there being music as an example and 'being' music rather than hearing the music . I haven't read much about her at all other than a few quotes but it is exactly that . This is why there is no observer or witness, if there is, there is reference to 'you' observing which is a mindful reflection, it's not the 'being what you are' that I am referring too . This beingness is not of the mind even though there is what you are being this or that of it . By self I mean a thought of yourself being this or that compared to no self / no thought of oneself . This world refers to our environment of the mind . Earth, the spirit world, the 5th. 6th, 7th dimensions and such likes . This world as one perceives it is a self reflection based upon self being a thought of oneself, which includes obviously one's sense of identity .This world is created and is present as a physical structure, we are making sense of what's here (which doesn't go down well as some peeps think creation = perception) which doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever . No observer no witness is when there is no self or this world / mind . So you actually mean quite literally no perception at all, not even non-conceptual perception? The 'being' music instead of hearing music analogy seems to me pointing to the end of the subject-object split though. Which means there is still perception happening. Here's an interview with Bernadette Roberts, maybe you can find some points you can agree with and then post it: awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/07/bernadette-roberts-interview.htmlOkay, then then we define self in the same way, too. So 'this world' then means the physical as well as the non-physical realm. Are you familiar with Seth's camouflage concept? Camouflage basically refers to the basic rules/laws of any given reality system as opposed to basic reality (as Seth calls it) itself which is prior to any camouflage but at the same time within the camouflage and actually the very fabric of the camouflage. Yes I mean no perception at all . B.R's thoughts about the music was just illustrating the difference between actually being the music rather than being something that can hear the music . I will take a look at the link at some point . Yes 'this world' will relate to one's environment in whatever shape or form / non form one experiences / is . Kinda makes sense to me the camouflage thing if I understand it correctly .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 19, 2018 2:33:46 GMT -5
The 'being of all that is' has nowt to do with substance at this point . This is beyond / prior to Consciousness / awareness / substance . I have only heard Bernadette Roberts speak of beyond self as beyond consciousness, there is just 'being what you are' beyond any thought / sense / awareness of that . It is impossible to relate too, I like to suggest that what we are is pure electricity and there is no feeling of that per se, no awareness of that, there is just that . I think again Bernadette Roberts speaks of there being music as an example and 'being' music rather than hearing the music . I haven't read much about her at all other than a few quotes but it is exactly that . This is why there is no observer or witness, if there is, there is reference to 'you' observing which is a mindful reflection, it's not the 'being what you are' that I am referring too . This beingness is not of the mind even though there is what you are being this or that of it . By self I mean a thought of yourself being this or that compared to no self / no thought of oneself . This world refers to our environment of the mind . Earth, the spirit world, the 5th. 6th, 7th dimensions and such likes . This world as one perceives it is a self reflection based upon self being a thought of oneself, which includes obviously one's sense of identity .This world is created and is present as a physical structure, we are making sense of what's here (which doesn't go down well as some peeps think creation = perception) which doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever . No observer no witness is when there is no self or this world / mind . Tenka I don't know much of Bernadette Roberts but as a child I was visited by sages and even at night a sage would appear in a nappy long hair a Hindu sage. Show me healing and then touch my heart on the right side and crown. I would feel the room go in to what can only be described as a stretched effect. And I would close my eyes to get my room back go within see the inner moon, stars ✨ the music and sounds go past certain regions worlds all with a different sound. Om and Hu were the first sounds and more flute like sounds and a still crystal lake a more beautiful sound. Each a world and region within. Only after being on the market and falling awake I came across many Bhakti sages who described these inner ripples of mind stages on the ocean of stillness. Real worlds yet unreal at the same time. Why Kabir talks about finding a true SatGuru as you may place yourself in one of these inner regions. Or with a swami gurus using the language of waking up too. In India the land is infested with false teachers ..... I'm sure I came across Teresa of Avila entering the castle the inner rooms and sounds too. But I do feel like I've found Being with Ian Wolstenholme He is in That, but also here too. But teaches with honesty. Talks on the domains of experiencing from a Western perspective. The needs of the body and emotions. Ramanas map won't work for me until I see him in work pick up a phone , or offload a lorry at work go home to his wife and children. As most people I know do. Apart from the Ashram antics the politics he must have had to put up with and of free service from devotees and rich donors who paid in. As he was saying my teachings are free for all. No True Guru charges but other people paid in for him to be able to say that. But as with most Ashrams as much as they say these teachings are free there are donors behind them footing the bill. I do feel he is That but his map won't sail most across in these times. Ramanas teachings won't do well as a map. The Western mind is more sophisticated has more problems so it needs a better map at pointing within. Eckhart is a better map and there will be more. That's really interesting Blue, thanks for sharing .. Within mind / consciousness many so called weird things can happen . Matter / cells / atoms can be manipulated in various ways (it's so darn interesting) and perhaps as always difficult to explain and understand . Your room is a construct of certain energies / vibrations and what that consists of can change to certain degrees but only in certain ways if that makes sense . When I was on a spiritual retreat a while back I was on a physical mediumship course (not cruise) incase the frog man is reading this, and after a session a man was asked to turn on the light, he seemed to take ages, he said that he had his hands up against the wall and he felt as if he kept walking and walking and the room seemed to stretch 10 times it's actual size . It really did freak him out, there was also a table that seemed to tip up on it's back legs and was going to fall forward towards a few of us but the table hadn't moved at all even though a few of us put our hands out to stop it falling . I haven't heard of those that you speak of, but I resonate with what you said about Ramanas map won't work for you until you see him in work pick up a phone , or offload a lorry at work go home to his wife and children. As most people I know do. I had the same views, lets see the floating poetical guru types work in a call centre for a few years dealing with customer complaints for 10 hours a day lol ..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2018 5:28:45 GMT -5
So you actually mean quite literally no perception at all, not even non-conceptual perception? The 'being' music instead of hearing music analogy seems to me pointing to the end of the subject-object split though. Which means there is still perception happening. Here's an interview with Bernadette Roberts, maybe you can find some points you can agree with and then post it: awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/07/bernadette-roberts-interview.htmlOkay, then then we define self in the same way, too. So 'this world' then means the physical as well as the non-physical realm. Are you familiar with Seth's camouflage concept? Camouflage basically refers to the basic rules/laws of any given reality system as opposed to basic reality (as Seth calls it) itself which is prior to any camouflage but at the same time within the camouflage and actually the very fabric of the camouflage. Yes I mean no perception at all . B.R's thoughts about the music was just illustrating the difference between actually being the music rather than being something that can hear the music . I will take a look at the link at some point . Yes 'this world' will relate to one's environment in whatever shape or form / non form one experiences / is . Kinda makes sense to me the camouflage thing if I understand it correctly . So basically what you are talking about is what has been called 'the void' by others? I've been skimming thru the interview and what stood out to me was one paragraph where Bernadette mentioned that the Buddhist have mistaken the no-self for the no-ego experience. According to her what Buddhism is pointing to is actually the no-Self 'experience'. And I think that sounds a lot like what you are talking about. However, if this is really some kind of void then the music analogy doesn't work here. Yes, I think you will like the camouflage thing because it also nicely explains the entire reincarnation business.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 19, 2018 5:54:18 GMT -5
Yes I mean no perception at all . B.R's thoughts about the music was just illustrating the difference between actually being the music rather than being something that can hear the music . I will take a look at the link at some point . Yes 'this world' will relate to one's environment in whatever shape or form / non form one experiences / is . Kinda makes sense to me the camouflage thing if I understand it correctly . So basically what you are talking about is what has been called 'the void' by others? I've been skimming thru the interview and what stood out to me was one paragraph where Bernadette mentioned that the Buddhist have mistaken the no-self for the no-ego experience. According to her what Buddhism is pointing to is actually the no-Self 'experience'. And I think that sounds a lot like what you are talking about. However, if this is really some kind of void then the music analogy doesn't work here. Yes, I think you will like the camouflage thing because it also nicely explains the entire reincarnation business. Not sure if the void is referring to what I am speaking of, I have just looked up the void and it talks about emptiness and meditative states and such likes .. I would have to do thorough research on the subject tbh and I am not the guy to do that lol . Emptiness just isn't the right world reference at all I would say . In regards to B.R's quotes I found them .. They were more in line of 'being' compared to 'knowing' ... (I couldn't remember the whole context at the time) A different type of knowing remains when the relative mind ceases toexist. It is the type of knowing that is not a knowing at all, for thereis only Being.How can anything be known, when it Is? How can the eyesee itself? Or music hear itself? How can 'I' know 'that', when 'I' AM'that'?Like said I think it just explains the difference between being and knowing .. There is only knowing when there is no longer being, when there is self present . This is why beyond, is beyond self, knowing, observing, perceiving, witnessing etc ,
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2018 10:47:52 GMT -5
So basically what you are talking about is what has been called 'the void' by others? I've been skimming thru the interview and what stood out to me was one paragraph where Bernadette mentioned that the Buddhist have mistaken the no-self for the no-ego experience. According to her what Buddhism is pointing to is actually the no-Self 'experience'. And I think that sounds a lot like what you are talking about. However, if this is really some kind of void then the music analogy doesn't work here. Yes, I think you will like the camouflage thing because it also nicely explains the entire reincarnation business. Not sure if the void is referring to what I am speaking of, I have just looked up the void and it talks about emptiness and meditative states and such likes .. I would have to do thorough research on the subject tbh and I am not the guy to do that lol . Emptiness just isn't the right world reference at all I would say . In regards to B.R's quotes I found them .. They were more in line of 'being' compared to 'knowing' ... (I couldn't remember the whole context at the time) A different type of knowing remains when the relative mind ceases toexist. It is the type of knowing that is not a knowing at all, for thereis only Being.How can anything be known, when it Is? How can the eyesee itself? Or music hear itself? How can 'I' know 'that', when 'I' AM'that'?Like said I think it just explains the difference between being and knowing .. There is only knowing when there is no longer being, when there is self present . This is why beyond, is beyond self, knowing, observing, perceiving, witnessing etc , Yes, the void experience in the sense of being literally a void doesn't jive with the music analogy. And it seems that's what you really resonated with. So it's probably not that. We can go back to this later. What she describes there in the quotes sorta matches what I mean by 'no subject-object split' but this doesn't necessarily mean that all perception ceases. I'll continue with the rest of your original post about SR.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Oct 19, 2018 13:53:25 GMT -5
Tenka I don't know much of Bernadette Roberts but as a child I was visited by sages and even at night a sage would appear in a nappy long hair a Hindu sage. Show me healing and then touch my heart on the right side and crown. I would feel the room go in to what can only be described as a stretched effect. And I would close my eyes to get my room back go within see the inner moon, stars ✨ the music and sounds go past certain regions worlds all with a different sound. Om and Hu were the first sounds and more flute like sounds and a still crystal lake a more beautiful sound. Each a world and region within. Only after being on the market and falling awake I came across many Bhakti sages who described these inner ripples of mind stages on the ocean of stillness. Real worlds yet unreal at the same time. Why Kabir talks about finding a true SatGuru as you may place yourself in one of these inner regions. Or with a swami gurus using the language of waking up too. In India the land is infested with false teachers ..... I'm sure I came across Teresa of Avila entering the castle the inner rooms and sounds too. But I do feel like I've found Being with Ian Wolstenholme He is in That, but also here too. But teaches with honesty. Talks on the domains of experiencing from a Western perspective. The needs of the body and emotions. Ramanas map won't work for me until I see him in work pick up a phone , or offload a lorry at work go home to his wife and children. As most people I know do. Apart from the Ashram antics the politics he must have had to put up with and of free service from devotees and rich donors who paid in. As he was saying my teachings are free for all. No True Guru charges but other people paid in for him to be able to say that. But as with most Ashrams as much as they say these teachings are free there are donors behind them footing the bill. I do feel he is That but his map won't sail most across in these times. Ramanas teachings won't do well as a map. The Western mind is more sophisticated has more problems so it needs a better map at pointing within. Eckhart is a better map and there will be more. That's really interesting Blue, thanks for sharing .. Within mind / consciousness many so called weird things can happen . Matter / cells / atoms can be manipulated in various ways (it's so darn interesting) and perhaps as always difficult to explain and understand . Your room is a construct of certain energies / vibrations and what that consists of can change to certain degrees but only in certain ways if that makes sense . When I was on a spiritual retreat a while back I was on a physical mediumship course (not cruise) incase the frog man is reading this, and after a session a man was asked to turn on the light, he seemed to take ages, he said that he had his hands up against the wall and he felt as if he kept walking and walking and the room seemed to stretch 10 times it's actual size . It really did freak him out, there was also a table that seemed to tip up on it's back legs and was going to fall forward towards a few of us but the table hadn't moved at all even though a few of us put our hands out to stop it falling . I haven't heard of those that you speak of, but I resonate with what you said about Ramanas map won't work for you until you see him in work pick up a phone , or offload a lorry at work go home to his wife and children. As most people I know do. I had the same views, lets see the floating poetical guru types work in a call centre for a few years dealing with customer complaints for 10 hours a day lol .. For me I do work. I tend to have a more loving gaze as my fellow workers love to pick on. They had me drive a Porsche and mclaren the other day to see how well I would do. I was keeping the cars away from the curb as not to scratch the alloys tyres. On my way home my first time someone swore at me in twenty odd years of awakening as he pulled over and said keep to effing otherside. The stillness and silence is there in every action and activity. Compared to the old me that would get worried I find most activities have more of a flow to them. The physical body is less tired. I can drive home and it's as if I've never been at work too. As you're always home in one sense. The pictures change. Does the body and emotions say enough of this at times. Yes it does. Taking a walk in nature, speaking to my partner or Being with Ian is a nicer flow. Even though there is a flow at work. From the experiential side it can be a little much. I know Ian or Donna after a nights meal with friends they can see when they want to retreat home and be alone. I don't know how it is for you?
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Oct 19, 2018 13:57:00 GMT -5
Well the problem is this isn't the end you still have come back down the mountain especially in the Western world and in the East as there is no such thing anymore after realisation and either go back to work or speak to a loved one. Using Ramanas map can be ok for some but also misleading for others. Why only a few awakened under his teachings, according to David Godman you can probably count them on your one hand. Will this map work for western students, is true for your wife and child Gopal are they an illusion? All that it means to say that they are illusion is that what they are not what they were once thought to be. Hey you rolled a dice 🎲 before your turn. That's cheating. I've been on that square. It's a great pointer. Without mentioning Maya ( and maya has created a non duality section within it) Trikuti and par Brahm. Sohang or Satpurusha On this spiritual monopoly board I can see what you are pointing at but in both yours and gopals experience. Not the domain of the seer or the silence you carry back with you in to the marketplace. The domain of the body emotions in intimacy, relating with people, friends. How do you feel from what you are pointing at in the domain of the body and emotions experience. Bringing the seer and silence in everyday living. I ask, as does a sage who comes back down the mountain taking responsibility for his feelings does it take him out of the natural state, expanded space. Whatever you want to call it. The true I? I have found Being with western students in the here and now that the teachings having looked into their lives evolved more down the route of sorting something out before they can go to That place inside. And that matters to me🎲in this spiritual game. As the houses are now worth more on love street than I Am street. My preference would be to sit in silence with everyone. That's ok for me but not most seekers.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 19, 2018 14:25:11 GMT -5
That's really interesting Blue, thanks for sharing .. Within mind / consciousness many so called weird things can happen . Matter / cells / atoms can be manipulated in various ways (it's so darn interesting) and perhaps as always difficult to explain and understand . Your room is a construct of certain energies / vibrations and what that consists of can change to certain degrees but only in certain ways if that makes sense . When I was on a spiritual retreat a while back I was on a physical mediumship course (not cruise) incase the frog man is reading this, and after a session a man was asked to turn on the light, he seemed to take ages, he said that he had his hands up against the wall and he felt as if he kept walking and walking and the room seemed to stretch 10 times it's actual size . It really did freak him out, there was also a table that seemed to tip up on it's back legs and was going to fall forward towards a few of us but the table hadn't moved at all even though a few of us put our hands out to stop it falling . I haven't heard of those that you speak of, but I resonate with what you said about Ramanas map won't work for you until you see him in work pick up a phone , or offload a lorry at work go home to his wife and children. As most people I know do. I had the same views, lets see the floating poetical guru types work in a call centre for a few years dealing with customer complaints for 10 hours a day lol .. For me I do work. I tend to have a more loving gaze as my fellow workers love to pick on. They had me drive a Porsche and mclaren the other day to see how well I would do. I was keeping the cars away from the curb as not to scratch the alloys tyres. On my way home my first time someone swore at me in twenty odd years of awakening as he pulled over and said keep to effing otherside. The stillness and silence is there in every action and activity. Compared to the old me that would get worried I find most activities have more of a flow to them. The physical body is less tired. I can drive home and it's as if I've never been at work too. As you're always home in one sense. The pictures change. Does the body and emotions say enough of this at times. Yes it does. Taking a walk in nature, speaking to my partner or Being with Ian is a nicer flow. Even though there is a flow at work. From the experiential side it can be a little much. I know Ian or Donna after a nights meal with friends they can see when they want to retreat home and be alone. I don't know how it is for you? I have road closures, traffic lights, road repairs stone chips all over the place and a white van man tore down my road at 50 mph in a 25 mph zone and sprayed stones all over my car and chipped the windscreen .. I put my middle finger up and said a few hell mary's at his lack of respect for others . My son went to buy a car and was prompted to leave a deposit with the assurance that the car in question was H.P.I clear . He done his own checks and found out that the car still had finance on it so the garage in question was not able to sell the car on legally . I gave the middle finger remotely, twice as in as many days, my boy asked for his deposit back and said he can't have it back even thought the deposit given wasn't stated to be non refundable . Hassle, hassle, hassle,and I can write a list as long as my arm in this respect .. Perhaps if I lived in a monastery I would be as calm as ramana, but like said, put ramana in a call centre and lets watch him use his middle finger . Keeping on a car vibe and a middle finger vibe the road is closed near where I have to go at my weekly spiritual circle evening and 3 times in as many weeks I have got lost with my sat nav on and off because of diversions taking me down country lanes at night where the sat nav gets no signal .. It even took me down a farmers field at some point where I damaged the underneath of my car because of the off road safari detour .. If you thought it was thunder you heard that night it was probably me beating my chest roaring at the sky above .
|
|