|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 11, 2020 22:42:12 GMT -5
Wow. No wonder we have a problem communicating on this forum! I doubt that anyone else defines surrender in that way. Ignoring the communication issue for the moment, were you able to enter samadhi the first time you meditated? And surrender requires a self reference thought. If we are talking about the path of Jnana (direct knowledge) then to surrender is to go back to the source which is pure awareness. Any other kind of surrender which involves some kind of conceptual thinking is not surrender in the direct sense of Jnana yoga. For instance you may decide that you are going to try and cultivate an attitude of accepting everything that happens to you without judgement, be tolerant and try not to be reactive to events around you and to be of service to others. This would be the path of Karma Yoga which can be preparation for Jnana yoga using the practice of self inquiry. Unfortunately most peeps in spiritual forums just want to completely bypass the purification that's usually necessary to achieve a quiet mind in preparation for the deeper practice of Jnana if indeed that is their disposition. Karma yoga and Bhakti yoga (devotion) which our Krishna Consciousness friend Krysnaraja practices are the most widely practiced in the world. Jnana much less so, but it seems to be what most people in spirituality forms are interested in, the most extreme school of non-duality. That was not my path which was Jnana but it was more related to Yoga and Tantra rather than Advaita vedanta. And indeed TM is a tantric practice. There is also a school of nondual advaita called devotional advaita which combines devotion to God with pure nondual practices. So it's a rich soup of philosophies which tends to get filtered down in spirituality groups to one kind of extreme non-duality which came about through the Western satsang movement which cherry picked the best bits of non-duality that work better within a western context which has a history of psychoanalysis and counseling to solve personal problems. Indeed there are now analysts who incorporate non-duality into their therapies.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2020 22:47:38 GMT -5
It does seem like an unusual definition at first, but when you look at it in terms of sahaja, flow and wu wei it does actually make sense. Yes, I can see that surrender could be considered a synonym for full acceptance of "what is," but that level of acceptance usually results from numerous realizations and an end to existential questions. Satch says that he fell into deep samadhi at the age of 9, and attained a shallow samadhi as soon as he was instructed in meditation, so his path was obviously quite different than that of most of the people I've met. Most folks are dominated by dozens of ideas about reality that prevent acceptance, and until those ideas are seen through, acceptance/surrender remains an extremely distant possibility. Even among serious Zen students who've meditated for a long time, deep samadhi is fairly rare, much less deep insights into THIS. Satch tells seekers that surrender/acceptance is the easiest thing in the world. That would be like telling someone who thinks that there shouldn't be war, murder, rape, torture, or natural catastrophes, "Forget that idea and just accept that this is the way reality is." Any sage knows that that's true, but is it easy for someone who doesn't know that that's true to just drop that idea? It would be like telling an average Joe, "Forget the idea that you're a SVP, give up all of your fantasies, forget any ideas about how the world or other people ought to be, forget all of your religious or philosophical ideas, and drop all the rest of your cultural conditioning." What's the chance of that happening without some major insights? And a prime reason that spirituality in the West was almost exclusively "bhakti-yoga" for dozens of centuries suddenly comes into focus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 23:28:53 GMT -5
Self-Realized? I have never come under your category of self-realized. Correct. What's Self-realization? knowing who they genuinely are, eh? Correct again. If so, I know myself not only to be a perceiver but additionally to be an engenderer those perceptions, I consider the people those ken this truth as Self-Realized. As for as I ken, Nobody in this forum except me and Enigma knows this truth. So for me, me and Enigma are the only people are self-realized. Not entirely correct. Some others here also know that truth. It's just that you guys consider it the highest truth and the others don't. Who are the others? Can you please name one? Knowing this truth of you as a creator is not as easy as you think. It's not in your hand. AT some point in time in your life it would be revealed that you are the only one player in the game. You would be revealed that you are only fighting with yourself and with your belief and others are just confirming what's going in your inner. This require a direct seeing and knowing this truth is not in your hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 4:41:55 GMT -5
Correct. Correct again. Not entirely correct. Some others here also know that truth. It's just that you guys consider it the highest truth and the others don't. Who are the others? Can you please name one? Knowing this truth of you as a creator is not as easy as you think. It's not in your hand. AT some point in time in your life it would be revealed that you are the only one player in the game. You would be revealed that you are only fighting with yourself and with your belief and others are just confirming what's going in your inner. This require a direct seeing and knowing this truth is not in your hand. And what happens when the fighting stops?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 12, 2020 12:13:10 GMT -5
Correct. Correct again. Not entirely correct. Some others here also know that truth. It's just that you guys consider it the highest truth and the others don't. Who are the others? Can you please name one? Knowing this truth of you as a creator is not as easy as you think. It's not in your hand. AT some point in time in your life it would be revealed that you are the only one player in the game. You would be revealed that you are only fighting with yourself and with your belief and others are just confirming what's going in your inner. This require a direct seeing and knowing this truth is not in your hand. Didn't you just say that you and Enigma are the only chosen ones who can play that game? Then that makes two already. Something wrong with your math here.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 12, 2020 12:16:52 GMT -5
Who are the others? Can you please name one? Knowing this truth of you as a creator is not as easy as you think. It's not in your hand. AT some point in time in your life it would be revealed that you are the only one player in the game. You would be revealed that you are only fighting with yourself and with your belief and others are just confirming what's going in your inner. This require a direct seeing and knowing this truth is not in your hand. And what happens when the fighting stops? That would be the end of the Gopal-person. Which would be the end of the Gopal-person world. Which has to be avoided at all costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 22:19:58 GMT -5
Self-Realized? I have never come under your category of self-realized. What's Self-realization? knowing who they genuinely are, eh? If so, I know myself not only to be a perceiver but additionally to be an engenderer those perceptions, I consider the people those ken this truth as Self-Realized. As for as I ken, Nobody in this forum except me and Enigma knows this truth. So for me, me and Enigma are the only people are self-realized.what about ken?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 22:24:00 GMT -5
Whatever is being perceived is engendered by my consciousness. Consciousness engenders and perceives. It's engendering while it's perceiving. When I optically canvass a movie, movie is being engendered which doesn't differ from the authentic life, but one story pellucidly places as a passive witness and another story places me as a active witness. This is withal best example of why story ultimately decides how we feel. Right, I understand that you're saying so, but you have to argue for it...repeated assertion is not an argument. When you watch a regular movie (say, Batman or whatever), do you conclude you created it just because you're watching it? Clearly not. There were scriptwriters, actors, a director, etc. It doesn't matter whether you 'tell yourself the story' that you’re creating it or not... we don't believe we created a movie just because we watch it. So why should we conclude we create our experience just because we're the witnesses of it?That's the wonderful question you asked. Yes, why should I conclude we create our experience just because we are the witnesses of it? This require the direct seeing of how universe unfolds. But knowing this one completely not in our hand. It has to be revealed. I replied regarding the same to Reefs in my last reply.
Correct. Correct again. Not entirely correct. Some others here also know that truth. It's just that you guys consider it the highest truth and the others don't. Who are the others? Can you please name one? Knowing this truth of you as a creator is not as easy as you think. It's not in your hand. AT some point in time in your life it would be revealed that you are the only one player in the game. You would be revealed that you are only fighting with yourself and with your belief and others are just confirming what's going in your inner. This require a direct seeing and knowing this truth is not in your hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 22:24:48 GMT -5
abaft=beyond. God! thanks for giving me an opportunity to teach a vocabulary to an English man. As I understand it, abaft is a nautical term that refers to an area beyond some reference point on the boat. Abaft the stern or abaft the port beam. I don't think it translates outside of the nautical context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 22:25:19 GMT -5
Who are the others? Can you please name one? Knowing this truth of you as a creator is not as easy as you think. It's not in your hand. AT some point in time in your life it would be revealed that you are the only one player in the game. You would be revealed that you are only fighting with yourself and with your belief and others are just confirming what's going in your inner. This require a direct seeing and knowing this truth is not in your hand. And what happens when the fighting stops?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 22:30:56 GMT -5
Who are the others? Can you please name one? Knowing this truth of you as a creator is not as easy as you think. It's not in your hand. AT some point in time in your life it would be revealed that you are the only one player in the game. You would be revealed that you are only fighting with yourself and with your belief and others are just confirming what's going in your inner. This require a direct seeing and knowing this truth is not in your hand. Didn't you just say that you and Enigma are the only chosen ones who can play that game? Then that makes two already. Something wrong with your math here. I don't know whether Enigma is real or not. Let us suppose Enigma is real and he is the another view point of Consciousness. But still it doesn't change the truth that I create my own world with my illusions. He creates his world with his illusions. If he comes in my life, then somehow from inner we need each other, for an instance we meet here in this forum is the best example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 22:36:51 GMT -5
It does seem like an unusual definition at first, but when you look at it in terms of sahaja, flow and wu wei it does actually make sense. Yes, I can see that surrender could be considered a synonym for full acceptance of "what is," but that level of acceptance usually results from numerous realizations and an end to existential questions. Satch says that he fell into deep samadhi at the age of 9, and attained a shallow samadhi as soon as he was instructed in meditation, so his path was obviously quite different than that of most of the people I've met. Most folks are dominated by dozens of ideas about reality that prevent acceptance, and until those ideas are seen through, acceptance/surrender remains an extremely distant possibility. Even among serious Zen students who've meditated for a long time, deep samadhi is fairly rare, much less deep insights into THIS. Satch tells seekers that surrender/acceptance is the easiest thing in the world. That would be like telling someone who thinks that there shouldn't be war, murder, rape, torture, or natural catastrophes, "Forget that idea and just accept that this is the way reality is." Any sage knows that that's true, but is it easy for someone who doesn't know that that's true to just drop that idea? It would be like telling an average Joe, "Forget the idea that you're a SVP, give up all of your fantasies, forget any ideas about how the world or other people ought to be, forget all of your religious or philosophical ideas, and drop all the rest of your cultural conditioning." What's the chance of that happening without some major insights? Exactly, well said. It wouldn't happen like that. If someone tries to accept anything which comes on his way,that's the practice of acceptance, it's not really an acceptance. Soon story would be unfolded from the lap of infinite to perform the accepting act!
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 12, 2020 23:19:10 GMT -5
Yes, I can see that surrender could be considered a synonym for full acceptance of "what is," but that level of acceptance usually results from numerous realizations and an end to existential questions. Satch says that he fell into deep samadhi at the age of 9, and attained a shallow samadhi as soon as he was instructed in meditation, so his path was obviously quite different than that of most of the people I've met. Most folks are dominated by dozens of ideas about reality that prevent acceptance, and until those ideas are seen through, acceptance/surrender remains an extremely distant possibility. Even among serious Zen students who've meditated for a long time, deep samadhi is fairly rare, much less deep insights into THIS. Satch tells seekers that surrender/acceptance is the easiest thing in the world. That would be like telling someone who thinks that there shouldn't be war, murder, rape, torture, or natural catastrophes, "Forget that idea and just accept that this is the way reality is." Any sage knows that that's true, but is it easy for someone who doesn't know that that's true to just drop that idea? It would be like telling an average Joe, "Forget the idea that you're a SVP, give up all of your fantasies, forget any ideas about how the world or other people ought to be, forget all of your religious or philosophical ideas, and drop all the rest of your cultural conditioning." What's the chance of that happening without some major insights? Exactly, well said. It wouldn't happen like that. If someone tries to accept anything which comes on his way,that's the practice of acceptance, it's not really an acceptance. Soon story would be unfolded from the lap of infinite to perform the accepting act! ZD doesn't understand what acceptance is. It is to go back to the source, nothing more. It is not about trying to accept some situation in your life. I said it's easy to do as a practice but that doesn't mean it's easy to get results. It may take some time.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 12, 2020 23:31:30 GMT -5
Exactly, well said. It wouldn't happen like that. If someone tries to accept anything which comes on his way,that's the practice of acceptance, it's not really an acceptance. Soon story would be unfolded from the lap of infinite to perform the accepting act! ZD doesn't understand what acceptance is. It is to go back to the source, nothing more. It is not about trying to accept some situation in your life. I said it's easy to do as a practice but that doesn't mean it's easy to get results. It may take some time. Giving up something is not easy. One has to undergo the five stages of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and then acceptance. They are a part of the framework that makes up our learning to live with the one we lost. They are tools to help us frame and identify what we may be feeling.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jan 13, 2020 1:16:02 GMT -5
Right, I understand that you're saying so, but you have to argue for it...repeated assertion is not an argument. When you watch a regular movie (say, Batman or whatever), do you conclude you created it just because you're watching it? Clearly not. There were scriptwriters, actors, a director, etc. It doesn't matter whether you 'tell yourself the story' that you’re creating it or not... we don't believe we created a movie just because we watch it. So why should we conclude we create our experience just because we're the witnesses of it?That's the wonderful question you asked. Yes, why should I conclude we create our experience just because we are the witnesses of it? This require the direct seeing of how universe unfolds. But knowing this one completely not in our hand. It has to be revealed. I replied regarding the same to Reefs in my last reply. Oh ok
|
|