|
Post by laughter on May 17, 2019 21:46:00 GMT -5
What about The Self cannot be the doer? Because as Self you primarily "identify" as the non localized witness of changing phenomena. The witness is not the doer. If you are standing on the sidewalk and you witness a car accident, then you react, you observe the unfolding events, yet you are standing as the uninvolved witness. There is no doing on your part even though you "identify" with and are engaged with what you observe. Nisargadatta is quoted as saying that even in his state he occasionally strongly identified with what was happening in duality. In this state if one becomes very absorbed in a thought or action there is a pulling back to the default state of silent witnessing. It's like stretching an elastic band towards that which is being experienced or engages the mind. The elastic is always exerting a force to pull you back to the default state of resting Awareness which is the natural state. Got the exact quote for that?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on May 17, 2019 21:47:09 GMT -5
My current conclusion is that SR is a pre-requisite to permanent inner-peace but not sufficient. And it seems to me that there are plenty of people peeps who are quite well adjusted and even content. And that's not to even touch the issue of how some people can seem to have deep existential insight, and even a solid intellectual understanding of the non-dual pointers, but then, who are still quite obviously unconsciously seeking. Interesting. I assume you’re aware that that definition of SR is quite different than Ramana’s? For him, SR was absolute peace, period, precisely because it wasn’t about the degree of remaining mental perturbation. In your opinion, what is sufficient for inner peace? Yes it is absolute peace. SR is not a prerequisite for anything.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 17, 2019 21:59:10 GMT -5
My current conclusion is that SR is a pre-requisite to permanent inner-peace but not sufficient. And it seems to me that there are plenty of people peeps who are quite well adjusted and even content. And that's not to even touch the issue of how some people can seem to have deep existential insight, and even a solid intellectual understanding of the non-dual pointers, but then, who are still quite obviously unconsciously seeking. Interesting. I assume you’re aware that that definition of SR is quite different than Ramana’s? For him, SR was absolute peace, period, precisely because it wasn’t about the degree of remaining mental perturbation. In your opinion, what is sufficient for inner peace? Yes, I'm aware. To some extent, it's a matter of terminology - when he spoke about the end of all vasana's he was talking about a particular end, but SR, the way I think of it and understand it, can come well before that end. The reason I don't want to describe SR in terms of vasana's is because it suggests that SR is about external conditions. Now, mind you, from the context of what he says, I can glean that's not what he means, but for a seeker, and especially a Western seeker, the probability of the implication is high.
I can only answer what is sufficient for inner peace, absent abstraction and speculation, from my own experience, but I don't think you or anyone else is all that interested in that.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on May 17, 2019 22:17:42 GMT -5
Interesting. I assume you’re aware that that definition of SR is quite different than Ramana’s? For him, SR was absolute peace, period, precisely because it wasn’t about the degree of remaining mental perturbation. In your opinion, what is sufficient for inner peace? Yes, I'm aware. To some extent, it's a matter of terminology - when he spoke about the end of all vasana's he was talking about a particular end, but SR, the way I think of it and understand it, can come well before that end. The reason I don't want to describe SR in terms of vasana's is because it suggests that SR is about external conditions. Now, mind you, from the context of what he says, I can glean that's not what he means, but for a seeker, and especially a Western seeker, the probability of the implication is high.
Ah, so this is the awakening/embodiment type deal that we were talking about with regards to Adya in that other thread, right? That is, in your terminology, SR is defined as an insight that may not be fully lived. For Ramana (and me), SR is the clarity that it is not an insight that can be more or less lived. It is simply flat fact. Anything less than that is not really knowledge. Awakening experiences would be considered glimpses, but not knowledge. Though once a glimpse is had, there’s going to be unstoppable motion towards the destination. Just a matter of time. Now regardless, even Ramana would say that the mind could be said to become quieter post-SR (and this is an increase in peace as conventionally understood), but he would dispute that this affected the SR peep’s experience, since such a “peep” is not identified with the mind. I’m interested . In your experience, what “beyond” SR did it take?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on May 17, 2019 22:20:14 GMT -5
Because as Self you primarily "identify" as the non localized witness of changing phenomena. The witness is not the doer. If you are standing on the sidewalk and you witness a car accident, then you react, you observe the unfolding events, yet you are standing as the uninvolved witness. There is no doing on your part even though you "identify" with and are engaged with what you observe. Nisargadatta is quoted as saying that even in his state he occasionally strongly identified with what was happening in duality. In this state if one becomes very absorbed in a thought or action there is a pulling back to the default state of silent witnessing. It's like stretching an elastic band towards that which is being experienced or engages the mind. The elastic is always exerting a force to pull you back to the default state of resting Awareness which is the natural state. Got the exact quote for that? "My destiny was to be born a simple man, a humble tradesman with little formal education. My life was of the common kind with desires and fears. Then, through faith in my teacher and obedience to his words, I realized my true being. I left behind my human nature to look after itself until its destiny is exhausted. Occasionally, an old reaction - emotional or mental - happens in the mind, but it is at once noticed and discarded. After all, as long as one is burdened with a personality, one is exposed to its idiosyncrasies and habits." Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 17, 2019 22:22:01 GMT -5
Got the exact quote for that? "My destiny was to be born a simple man, a humble tradesman with little formal education. My life was of the common kind with desires and fears. Then, through faith in my teacher and obedience to his words, I realized my true being. I left behind my human nature to look after itself until its destiny is exhausted. Occasionally, an old reaction - emotional or mental - happens in the mind, but it is at once noticed and discarded. After all, as long as one is burdened with a personality, one is exposed to its idiosyncrasies and habits." Nisargadatta Maharaj Yeah, like I suspected, your "quote", was inaccurate. A morph.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on May 17, 2019 22:22:43 GMT -5
"My destiny was to be born a simple man, a humble tradesman with little formal education. My life was of the common kind with desires and fears. Then, through faith in my teacher and obedience to his words, I realized my true being. I left behind my human nature to look after itself until its destiny is exhausted. Occasionally, an old reaction - emotional or mental - happens in the mind, but it is at once noticed and discarded. After all, as long as one is burdened with a personality, one is exposed to its idiosyncrasies and habits." Nisargadatta Maharaj Yeah, like I suspected, your "quote", was inaccurate. A morph. So what does it mean to you?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 17, 2019 22:53:30 GMT -5
Yes, I'm aware. To some extent, it's a matter of terminology - when he spoke about the end of all vasana's he was talking about a particular end, but SR, the way I think of it and understand it, can come well before that end. The reason I don't want to describe SR in terms of vasana's is because it suggests that SR is about external conditions. Now, mind you, from the context of what he says, I can glean that's not what he means, but for a seeker, and especially a Western seeker, the probability of the implication is high. Ah, so this is the awakening/embodiment type deal that we were talking about with regards to Adya in that other thread, right? That is, in your terminology, SR is defined as an insight that may not be fully lived. For Ramana (and me), SR is the clarity that it is not an insight that can be more or less lived. It is simply flat fact. Anything less than that is not really knowledge. Awakening experiences would be considered glimpses, but not knowledge. Though once a glimpse is had, there’s going to be unstoppable motion towards the destination. Just a matter of time. Now regardless, even Ramana would say that the mind could be said to become quieter post-SR (and this is an increase in peace as conventionally understood), but he would dispute that this affected the SR peep’s experience, since such a “peep” is not identified with the mind. I’m interested . In your experience, what “beyond” SR did it take? As far as "embodiment" is involved, that's partly another terminology issue, and I actually understand and support some of your objections to Adya's pointing in that regard. But no, I'm not referring to the distinction between what I call awakening and what I call self-realization, but rather, what happens after self-realization. My take on self-realization is that it's the realization of an absence that can be described as the absence of separation, or the absence of limitation. It's the end of the line for seeing the false as false .. not because the false is ever seen as somehow true after SR, but rather, there is no more falsity that can deceive, afterward. It's the end of any concept of reality, and, by necessary compliment, the end of any concept of identity - subconscious, or, otherwise. But, this is instantaneous and acausal, and what is realized, is a commonality between all living beings. It's the fourth entry in the truth table that Rumsfeld left out: the unknown known. As such, it can happen for anyone, at any time, at any place. It's not a reward for hard work or good behavior, nor is it possible to ever exclude anyone from the possibility of it. As such, the precise same conditioning that was extant in the instant preceding SR is the precise same conditioning extant in the instant afterward, as are the outward conditions in which the event happens. It's not really possible to discuss vasana's independent of that conditioning and those conditions. For me, there was a period of intense existential questioning that followed what I would refer to as the realization of the witness. The realization that I wasn't what I considered myself to be. The realization that the subtle, ever-pervasive sense of being was a ground of joy that the falseness had obscured. Even after this period of questioning ended, it took reading Niz and corresponding on this forum for months before I even realized the questioning was over. To this day, emotions come and go, and the process of becoming conscious of these has no potential end to it. In this I can perceive all sorts of sub-optimal conditioning, and as it's perceived, the stories of it and the ultimate emptiness of it all is quite clear, but what I'm referring to is about as opposite to nihilism as can possibly be. -- and nor am I describing a process of spiritual bypassing. SR is most definitely a binary affair. But the play of life, it all it's glorious duality, is one of enumerable color.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 17, 2019 23:00:32 GMT -5
Yeah, like I suspected, your "quote", was inaccurate. A morph. So what does it mean to you? That he occasionally experienced conditioned reactions to what appeared to him after he had realized his true being.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on May 17, 2019 23:10:03 GMT -5
So what does it mean to you? That he occasionally experienced conditioned reactions to what appeared to him after he had realized his true being. I cannot believe that your understanding is so superficial that you cannot determine the meaning behind what I paraphrased and the meaning behind what he quoted is the same.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 17, 2019 23:13:46 GMT -5
That he occasionally experienced conditioned reactions to what appeared to him after he had realized his true being. I cannot believe that your understanding is so superficial that you cannot determine the meaning behind what I paraphrased and the meaning behind what he quoted is the same. That's good, 'cause beliefs are dualistic, and thereby, limiting.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on May 17, 2019 23:16:52 GMT -5
I cannot believe that your understanding is so superficial that you cannot determine the meaning behind what I paraphrased and the meaning behind what he quoted is the same. That's good, 'cause beliefs are dualistic, and thereby, limiting. And that's bad is it?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 17, 2019 23:19:44 GMT -5
That's good, 'cause beliefs are dualistic, and thereby, limiting. And that's bad is it? There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on May 17, 2019 23:24:12 GMT -5
There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so. Oh. Hedging your bets are you?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 17, 2019 23:29:02 GMT -5
There is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so. Oh. Hedging your bets are you? Nah. Humor by way of polysemy is completely unambiguous -- although perhaps not entirely non-opaque.
|
|