|
Post by zendancer on May 18, 2019 12:38:52 GMT -5
Sifting: What was the sequence of events in your case that led to freedom, and how would you describe what happened? Were there multiple realizations along the way, or was there just one huge insight? Would you say that you were driven more by curiosity or suffering? Was there a point in time when you apprehended the Infinite, or did that coincide with SR? Would you describe life post SR as one of effortless flow (sahaja samadhi)? To make a long story short, it started with existential depression in my teens. Learned about Vedanta then through my guru at the time, and a kind of basic understanding of the search. About 20 years of psychological struggle to figure out why my mind wasn't able to focus on the search properly, and yes, progressively clearer and clearer understandings of the search along the way. For example, I encountered Ramana Maharshi about 15 years ago, and knew he was profound, but then when I came back 10 years later, had a much deeper understanding. Driven by both curiosity and suffering -- perhaps curiosity at suffering would be the best way to describe it. One could say that there were many realizations of psychological value along the way, and it was also notable the first time practicing Maharshi's method of self-inquiry and getting deliberately to a stage of what I call the spacious mind -- perhaps that's what you call apprehending the Infinite, I'm not sure. It's really simply the Truth, but it was a temporary experience. Revisiting that state over and over was part of a one-year-long end-phase which led to an alternation of self-inquiry and surrender and finally a point when, frustrated by the constant seeming "falling away" from the spacious mind no matter what I did, the empty character of mind suddenly became clear and the bottom was touched. That's what I'd call "The Realization." I'd describe life post-SR as -- indescribable. As in: like nothing at all, like being absent. Thanks. That's a fascinating path. My search was driven purely by curiosity-- an intuitive certainty that conventional explanations of reality were somehow flawed, which generated a need to understand what's going on in some fundamental way that would "make better sense." I had dozens of unresolved existential questions, but 20 years of thinking and reading didn't help at all. Due to business-related stress at the age of 40, I started a simple meditation exercise in order to get some peace of mind. Within two weeks I had a minor realization--that meditation was a different way of interacting with the world that made me see new things that had previously gone unnoticed. This led me to increase the time I spent in meditation. My next realization was that I had been living in my head for many years, and had failed to physically look at the world. I had been living on autopilot, so to speak, and was amazed to discover that there were still animals, birds, and insects in the world. Haha! Five months after starting to meditate I was up to three hours per day, and then began falling into deep states of nirvikalpa samadhi while sitting. After 3 nights of several hours in NS, I went to work and at mid-morning the ringing of a telephone caused my perception of reality to disintegrate. As soon as my personal identity vanished, and the world came alive, I encountered what I call "the Infinite" or "the Absolute"--an incomprehnsibly vast aware unified intelligent field of being, or Living Presence--which was perfect in every way and manifested pure love. That which was experienced is impossible to describe, but it was self evident that THAT was what lay behind all manifestations. It was obvious that THAT is what looks out of every set of eyes, and that THAT is what the universe appears within. There was no doubt that if the present universe disappeared entirely, THAT would still be here. Many realizations resulted from that seeing, and many past thinking patterns were replaced with new thinking patterns. I was amazed to hear myself explain things to people about which I had never previously had any idea. All fear of death had disappeared because I then viewed the body as something like an unimportant and temporary rental car. As a result of that cosmic consciousness event, I discovered that 7 of my many existential questions had been resolved. After I remembered my name, and sort of came back to normal, life was not the same. My past sense of selfhood had receded into the background, and I lived in the present moment in a state of flow. It literally felt like I was living in a heaven on earth, and all I cared about was helping other people. Three days later the old sense of selfhood gradually came back into the foreground, and the sense of being one-with reality dissipated. I subsequently concluded that my temporary enlightened state of mind had been triggered by meditation, and I assumed that all of my other existential questions could sooner or later be resolved by becoming silent and looking within. During the next 15 years I had two more big realizations and many minor insights which answered all of my remaining questions, and led to a stong focus upon whatever was happening in the present moment. I finally understood everything that I had ever wanted to understand, but one new question arose. During those 15 years of intense meditation I had had many experiences of what I called "unity conscousness" in which selfhood disappeared, but the "me" always sooner or later returned. My final question was, "How is it possible to remain in a unity-consciousness state of mind permanently?" I knew that I didn't feel free in the same way that I had felt following the CC experience 15 years earlier, but I didn't know why. I felt emotionally blocked in some odd way. AAR, I went on another week-long solo hiking retreat in the mountains (which I did several times each year), during which I did my usual direct perception practice. On the fifth day I had a deeply emotional experience of gratitude that left me feeling empty, and shortly afterwards, I looked "within" and was astonished that there was neither a "within" nor a "me." The sense of being a separate entity had totally vanished--the "little guy in the head" had disappeared without a trace. It instantly became obvious that there had never been a "me" and that the past sense of "me" had been some sort of thought structure, or story, or intellectual identification that had collapsed. In the absence of a "me" the body looked around, saw that the physical world was still present, and then realized that "what is"--ordinary reality, which included what had been seen 15 years earlier--was the only thingless thing that had ever existed. It became obvious that the entire search for truth had been undertaken by THAT, and that THAT was the only reality. There had never been a "me" that could ever have become enlightened. That ended the spiritual search, and resulted in freedom and a sense of equanimity. From that point onwards life felt like it flowed smoothly without obstruction no matter what was happening. I have no idea whether what I call "the Infinite" is what Ramana called "the Self" (or what Buddhists call "Buddha nature" or what Taoists call "Tao" or what Christians call "God" or what Hindus call "Brahman"), but that's what I assume. I simply know that what I call "the Infinite" is whole, incomprehensible, and deeply mysterious.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2019 15:23:46 GMT -5
Would like comments on this, from anyone (but particularly from sca and zd). ...in light of zazeniac's preface...(but of course zazeniac too...)... OTOH it says the ajnani though he imagines he is the doer, is not the doer. But the On the other hand, it says the ajnanis are the actors in the world, the doers of all acts. And then it also says: "Self cannot be the doer". (I've read it about six times)... I missed a paragraph break somewhere which muddled things up. Self is not a doer, an individual. Look for a doer and you'll find Self, because there is no doer. But if you imagine yourself to be a doer, an ajnani, then you must decide what song or action. You choose to play a role in this drama. Thanks zazeniac. Could you go back and correct the original quote, and bump it? Would be much appreciated. (This post helps but I'd like to see the whole context).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2019 15:27:30 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 That doesn't sound like "occasionally strongly identified".
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2019 15:29:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the story! This seems to be the crux of it. Is this realization different from what you're calling SR? And if it is SR, then, what about it is not permanent inner peace? When you say "permanent inner peace," are you referring to mental conditioning -- like, permanent inner peace would be a total lack of negative emotions? Or what? Maharaj: The attitude is the fact. Take anger. I may be furious, pacing the room up and down; at the same time I know what I am, a centre of wisdom and love, an atom of pure existence. All subsides and the mind merges into silence. Q: Still, you are angry sometimes. M: With whom am l to be angry and for what? Anger came and dissolved on my remembering myself. It is all a play of gunas (qualities of cosmic matter). When I identify myself with them, I am their slave. When I stand apart, I am their master. From I Am That Nisargadatta Maharaj The idea that the Self realized become emotionless robots seems to endure. But it is not surprising because most discussions are imaginings of what SR must be like. It's understandable that what appears to be negative should disappear after such a special event. sdp likes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2019 15:35:48 GMT -5
Well....this points out clearly I live in another universe. That was the advaita trap (split mind). Which means basically same universe as your universe but very different mental position (one that doesn't match what is actually experienced). Yes, got that...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2019 15:45:07 GMT -5
OK, we're getting to the point where I don't discuss inner experience. But I will say this much, attention is within I Am, I Am is not within attention. (I don't know if that makes sense or not). {Attention is a circle within the bigger circle, I Am}. IOW, attention is the "part" of the (more-)whole I Am. I don't know if we are just disagreeing one terminology, or not. ...IOW, two way mirror as an analogy, attention is in the "interrogation room", can see only one-way (it's reflection). I Am can see both ways (both sides of the two-way mirror). How can you not discuss inner experience? That's like saying you play the guitar but you're not going to discuss music. In my tradition inner experiences are never discussed. There are many reasons, but one is so that (if) upon hearing what another has experienced, the mind cannot imagine the same. Imagination is very powerful, and so it's best not to give it "food". So when experiences occur, they are unmistakable. And giving a more-real reason is even too personal.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 18, 2019 19:23:08 GMT -5
I'd have to say that it wasn't, because there was definitely still questioning going on. But it was, by far, the most significant existential realization I've encountered. If I were to pinpoint the moment seeking ended, it was in the middle of a private, online existential debate when I suddenly realized, mid-sentence, that I was still trying to make some sort of sense out of what had happened to me in the months prior, despite having come to understand that, essentially, nothing happened! (or ever did, or ever will...) , and that understanding was beyond intellect, and ineffability was certainly the case. I was all like "hey .. wait-a-minute .. I'm completely full of sh1t!! ". So why are we not calling this moment SR and anything previous just a glimpse? Isn't this the moment you mark when identification with the personal doer ceases definitively, the moment of "crossed that critical threshold" clarity? Interesting. I'd put it a little differently... I'd say there are no ultimate drivers and there never were. Indeed the very concept of ultimate drivers is ultimately false. Even what seems to be existential struggle is nothing other than the movement of bliss. How does that accord with what you're saying? Is it different? The lack of specific kinds of motivations generally does accord what happens after, but it is not absolutely critical to it, because motivations cannot ultimately be traced or stated. What matters for my conception is that the Background has been noticed in a way that now it is clear that it can never be unnoticed, and that the very idea that it could ever have been unnoticed seems impossible to understand. Agreed. I do think the mind becomes progressively quieter "post"-SR, and this is a mode of increasing conventional bliss... but that process goes on and on... In terms of which moment is the "SR moment", it's ultimately not that interesting to me -- and I've thought quite a bit about it during the course of the dialogs here in the past 5 years, for what should be obvious reasons. Like you described for yourself, I went through a period (of about a few months) of really intense existential seeking, at the end, founded on conscious self-inquiry, and that period was influenced by R.M. As I describe with this poem-like metaphor, there was a period, even before that, but after the initial realization, where clarity seemed to come and go. The nature of what it was that was coming and going became clear during that end-game, founded on Albert Low's Diamond Sutra prescription .. "arouse the mind, without resting it anywhere". But to be perfectly honest, the exact moment that happened wasn't something that I noted as much as those other two specific points in time. The way I think of and understand self-realization is that it's realizing a falsity, and as everyone is unique, while what they realize is the commonality, the final falsity will vary. For some it will be that the personal ego is false. For me, the first realization and the experiences that surrounded it had already made that clear, and what dropped for me instead was a foundational intellectual conception of the nature of reality, or, moreover, the affinity toward interest in developing one. Yes, there are no ultimate drivers. As I'm fond of repeating, I have an affinity for the Buddhist notion of dependent origination to describe how emptiness translates directly into relative, material terms. But in a relative context, any thought, and any emotion, can be traced backward to a (albeit arbitrary) set of causes. So, it's definitely possible to differentiate between negative motions that are ultimately existential in nature, from those that aren't, especially if one gets adept at certain methods of meditation. I'd opine that it's accurate to say that there is this sort of progression as life goes on after SR, but it seems to me that, similar to self-inquiry, that can and will play out as many ways as there are individuals for whom it plays out. But while the end of self-inquiry isn't a matter of degree, the changes in relative conditioning and conditions seems to me to always be that way, sort of by necessity/definition.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on May 18, 2019 21:15:36 GMT -5
How can you not discuss inner experience? That's like saying you play the guitar but you're not going to discuss music. In my tradition inner experiences are never discussed. There are many reasons, but one is so that (if) upon hearing what another has experienced, the mind cannot imagine the same. Imagination is very powerful, and so it's best not to give it "food". So when experiences occur, they are unmistakable. And giving a more-real reason is even too personal. So there's no such thing as a Zen discussion group. That would be an oxymoron would it?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 18, 2019 21:24:28 GMT -5
In my tradition inner experiences are never discussed. There are many reasons, but one is so that (if) upon hearing what another has experienced, the mind cannot imagine the same. Imagination is very powerful, and so it's best not to give it "food". So when experiences occur, they are unmistakable. And giving a more-real reason is even too personal. So there's no such thing as a Zen discussion group. That would be an oxymoron would it? SDP is involved with a Gurdjieff group, not Zen. Zen Masters often describe their experiences and realizations to motivate seekers, but they're never discussed in the same way as they're discussed here (sort of comparing notes and fleshing out definitions). The closest thing to these discussions are books like "The Three Pillars of Zen" in which ZM Kapleau describes Zen interviews and various kensho experiences.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 18, 2019 21:35:44 GMT -5
In the Soto Zen tradition discussion is avoided, but in the Rinzai tradition it's not.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on May 18, 2019 21:53:49 GMT -5
So there's no such thing as a Zen discussion group. That would be an oxymoron would it? SDP is involved with a Gurdjieff group, not Zen. Zen Masters often describe their experiences and realizations to motivate seekers, but they're never discussed in the same way as they're discussed here (sort of comparing notes and fleshing out definitions). The closest thing to these discussions are books like "The Three Pillars of Zen" in which ZM Kapleau describes Zen interviews and various kensho experiences. I've just read a bunch of quotes from Gurdjieff and they are all about inner experience. Here's one: “Without self knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave.” ― G.I. Gurdjieff So what on earth is SDP talking about?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 18, 2019 22:18:07 GMT -5
SDP is involved with a Gurdjieff group, not Zen. Zen Masters often describe their experiences and realizations to motivate seekers, but they're never discussed in the same way as they're discussed here (sort of comparing notes and fleshing out definitions). The closest thing to these discussions are books like "The Three Pillars of Zen" in which ZM Kapleau describes Zen interviews and various kensho experiences. I've just read a bunch of quotes from Gurdjieff and they are all about inner experience. Here's one: “Without self knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave.” ― G.I. Gurdjieff So what on earth is SDP talking about? The Gurdi' quote is about the objective appearance of a machine. The 'pilgrim seems to me to be referring to discussion of his subjective experience, and that seems to me to be a substantive distinction.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on May 18, 2019 22:20:22 GMT -5
I've just read a bunch of quotes from Gurdjieff and they are all about inner experience. Here's one: “Without self knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave.” ― G.I. Gurdjieff So what on earth is SDP talking about? The Gurdi' quote is about the objective appearance of a machine. The 'pilgrim seems to me to be referring to discussion of his subjective experience, and that seems to me to be a substantive distinction. Subjective experience? What other kind is there?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 19, 2019 4:50:55 GMT -5
You might enjoy reading Katsuki Sekida's book, "Zen Training." It's not what I'd consider a casual read -- not too hard to understand but it does take some concentration. But anyone who's ever meditated to a deep-quiet mind will be able to relate if they make the effort. Just be honest and admit that it is a rather boring book.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 19, 2019 6:53:54 GMT -5
The Gurdi' quote is about the objective appearance of a machine. The 'pilgrim seems to me to be referring to discussion of his subjective experience, and that seems to me to be a substantive distinction. Subjective experience? What other kind is there? Well, some of us distinguish between subjective experience (thoughts and feelings) and direct experience (direct sensory perception). Thoughts involve imagination, and SDP's tradition apparently doesn't want to have discussions that feed imagination. There are, however, different Gurdijieff groups (just like in Zen), and each group emphasizes different stuff. Many ND groups eschew personal stories for two reasons. First, they may enhance the importance of, and attachment to, personal selfhood, and second, they may become a form of showing off. Gangaji, for example, often tells people not to tell their personal stories, because it allows them to indulge in repetitive ego-enhancing patterns of thought, but she will accept questions or "reports" that involve realizations. Stories about realizations can often be helpful to other people whereas self-centered personal stories often involve layers and layers of psychological baggage ("my parents were mean to me, my co-workers don't appreciate me, my lover left me for no good reason, etc") that are not helpful to others. The Soto Zen tradition, more than any other tradition I know about, emphasizes silence, so their admonition can be summarized as, "Sit down, shut up, and do zazen." Their preferred practice is shikan taza, which is alert awareness with no focus. Beginners are taught to count the breath, and later to follow the breath, and much later to do shikan taza because shikan taza is too difficult for most beginners. They sit in mediation facing a wall, so that there are no distractions. I assume, based upon what he's written, that SDP's Gurdjieff's group shares an outlook that's more in line with Soto people. I don't know whether they have public dharma talks, private interviews, etc, but SDP can fill us in on that. I know that they have regular retreats because the TAT foundation uses the 160 acre Claymont Estate near Washington, DC that belongs to a Gurdjieff group. I'd be interested in hearing what the format of their retreats is like.
|
|