|
Post by tenka on Jan 10, 2020 15:25:48 GMT -5
It was an after thought as said .. I didn't recollect that sense at all .. It was simply a thought that came once I AM returned . I mean WW3 could of happened while I AM was absent and it wouldn't of mattered would it .. I can however only imply that once returned . There is only the thought post realization, so how can there be anything to recollect? There is only the now thought, so if there was no thought, there cannot be anything to recollect .. Can you describe what you call "realization?" Is it what most of us call nirvikalpa samadhi--a state of pure awareness and nothing else? If so, I wouldn't call that a realization; I would call it a state of psychological unity in which everything has disappeared except for awareness itself. Well I have been clear in the past that there is no realisation per se within 'simply being what you are' or 'pure awareness' as you put it . There is only the conclusion that there is a realisation post 'being' or post 'pure awareness' . I have to use the realisation reference so peeps can relate to the general term, but it is a bit of a red herring in some instances . There are no thoughts within being or pure awareness . There is no realisation . This is what I have been trying to explain to Andy as of late . So in regards to realisation there is a thought immediately after one returns to self awareness of the mind . What one concludes at this point is what is realised . It can be a milli second so to speak from no mind to mind . From being to realising . From no I AM awareness to I AM awareness . From no awareness of this world to awareness of this world . I think perhaps we would both agree that what is concluded of the mind isn't within pure awareness .. because a thought would taint it to some degree .
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 10, 2020 15:49:19 GMT -5
Can you describe what you call "realization?" Is it what most of us call nirvikalpa samadhi--a state of pure awareness and nothing else? If so, I wouldn't call that a realization; I would call it a state of psychological unity in which everything has disappeared except for awareness itself. Well I have been clear in the past that there is no realisation per se within 'simply being what you are' or 'pure awareness' as you put it . There is only the conclusion that there is a realisation post 'being' or post 'pure awareness' . I have to use the realisation reference so peeps can relate to the general term, but it is a bit of a red herring in some instances . There are no thoughts within being or pure awareness . There is no realisation . This is what I have been trying to explain to Andy as of late . So in regards to realisation there is a thought immediately after one returns to self awareness of the mind . What one concludes at this point is what is realised . It can be a milli second so to speak from no mind to mind . From being to realising . From no I AM awareness to I AM awareness . From no awareness of this world to awareness of this world . I think perhaps we would both agree that what is concluded of the mind isn't within pure awareness .. because a thought would taint it to some degree . OK. Let's try a different approach. What are you doing that results in a state of pure awareness beyond thought? Are you meditating? Are you using the word "realization" to refer to the state of mind that many of us call "nirvikalpa samadhi?" What happens from your POV prior to entering such a state of pure awareness?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 10, 2020 16:10:40 GMT -5
Well I have been clear in the past that there is no realisation per se within 'simply being what you are' or 'pure awareness' as you put it . Oh, but there is. And it can come as a complete surprise, when it happens. :-)
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 10, 2020 16:37:02 GMT -5
Well I have been clear in the past that there is no realisation per se within 'simply being what you are' or 'pure awareness' as you put it . Oh, but there is. And it can come as a complete surprise, when it happens. :-) JLY: I'm sure that you're referring to a realization whereas I think Tenka is referring to NS, but calling it a realization. It's not yet clear.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 10, 2020 16:46:13 GMT -5
Oh, but there is. And it can come as a complete surprise, when it happens. :-) JLY: I'm sure that you're referring to a realization whereas I think Tenka is referring to NS, but calling it a realization. It's not yet clear. I see. I'll watch some more. Thank you, ZD.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 10, 2020 20:50:34 GMT -5
well, im suggesting that the thought of I am was present but buried at a deep level of mind, almost like in hibernation. So the capacity to be aware was still there, but no mindfulness . But it's why you are able to sense that someone could have put pins in you, and it wouldn't have registered. Without the presence of I am, you wouldn't even be able to recollect that sense, it would be a total amnesia.
It was an after thought as said .. I didn't recollect that sense at all .. It was simply a thought that came once I AM returned . I mean WW3 could of happened while I AM was absent and it wouldn't of mattered would it .. I can however only imply that once returned . There is only the thought post realization, so how can there be anything to recollect? There is only the now thought, so if there was no thought, there cannot be anything to recollect .. How did you determine that I Am was absent, or that there was nothing to recollect?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 10, 2020 21:11:19 GMT -5
In fact, virtually every in depth discussion with you turns out precisely the same way regardless of who is discussing with you. Knowing this from the start, and actually agreeing with you from the start, I took advantage of the opportunity to try to understand what goes horribly wrong. Obviously, confusion abounds and it would be unfair to say you're entirely responsible. All I can say here is that you're quite the magician. Like said to reefs it's a tag team mentality in effect and your one of the members that I have had a two or three year running conversation with that had twisted and morphed beyond recognition .. There are plenty of folks that will testify to why that epic conversation went on for a long as it did .. Geeesus dude, honestly ... You really are not the best suited dude to point fingers here ... If you look at the facts regarding the pilgrim he actually agreed with what I had been saying all along but because of his agenda and his tag team ethics he kept on and on refuting what I said without even realizing .. So if somebody agrees with one thing you say but then disagrees with another, it's because they fell into some tag team mentality? I'd say it's because they agreed with one thing you said and disagreed with another. That was my experience also. I'm not a member of any tag teams on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 10, 2020 21:17:50 GMT -5
But you had thoughts about what happened. Was that entirely imagination after the fact? Sure, after the fact I had thoughts . As said a million times what is said as an after thought is a mindful conclusion .. There is however a clear knowing had that one is aware of I AM and the world compared to not . One concludes what they do from that comparison, of self, no self, mind, no mind etc . Some peeps somehow conclude that what you are is Consciousness for examples sake and that wasn't a self realized thought during the realization itself was it .. lol .. You seem to ask me questions that you really know the answers to based upon your own conclusions made that were not realized . And those thoughts were about what happened while you weren't there. Have you learned nothing from all your preaching about the need for a self reference?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 10, 2020 21:53:55 GMT -5
Think back to the times you wrote a poem. As always, there's a matter of degree involved, as no poem is perfect, some are good, and some are bad. If I'm looking to create new original content.. I have to think it into existence Yeah, I honestly don't have a problem if you want to think of it that way. It's just .. we can tell the difference, from both the inside looking out at someone else's stuff, or inward, at our own actions, as they're going on, between when the action or creation is done with a quiescent inner state, or not. Even, to some extent, accounting for conditioned aesthetic preferences.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2020 22:11:00 GMT -5
This brought up a question, tenka, are you an empath? Yes I am an empath / sensitive and have been a healer for 25 years . So much I don't reveal to you guy's for obvious reasons .. OK.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 10, 2020 22:12:09 GMT -5
I was simply saying that what you were saying with self reference is not what I thought you were saying. IOW, your reference to self reference was diffferent from mine. Different means what you meant by self reference was not all encompassing. IOW, I thought you now understood that. Guess not.Well I only responded to what you bolded and responded to me stating . TENKA
Well how can that possibly be the case because my definition of it encompasses every self reference that you care to use ... So I stated ... 'I haven't said that anyone's self reference is a wrong reference .. to emphasise that point .
You said that wasn't true .. It was true. I do however understand that you were not clear on what I have been saying about a self reference . I don't understand how that is possible due to how many times I have explained it but I do believe you were not clear . OK.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jan 10, 2020 22:37:53 GMT -5
If I'm looking to create new original content.. I have to think it into existence Yeah, I honestly don't have a problem if you want to think of it that way. It's just .. we can tell the difference, from both the inside looking out at someone else's stuff, or inward, at our own actions, as they're going on, between when the action or creation is done with a quiescent inner state, or not. Even, to some extent, accounting for conditioned aesthetic preferences. T.S. Eliot said of Henry James that "He had a mind so fine that no idea could violate it." I used to think it was a putdown. Actually it was a profound compliment.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 10, 2020 22:43:48 GMT -5
Yeah, I honestly don't have a problem if you want to think of it that way. It's just .. we can tell the difference, from both the inside looking out at someone else's stuff, or inward, at our own actions, as they're going on, between when the action or creation is done with a quiescent inner state, or not. Even, to some extent, accounting for conditioned aesthetic preferences. T.S. Eliot said of Henry James that "He had a mind so fine that no idea could violate it." I used to think it was a putdown. Actually it was a profound compliment. (** fires-up google-for-state-school-engineer's **)
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jan 10, 2020 22:45:41 GMT -5
T.S. Eliot said of Henry James that "He had a mind so fine that no idea could violate it." I used to think it was a putdown. Actually it was a profound compliment. (** fires-up google-for-state-school-engineer's **)
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 11, 2020 5:14:04 GMT -5
Well I have been clear in the past that there is no realisation per se within 'simply being what you are' or 'pure awareness' as you put it . There is only the conclusion that there is a realisation post 'being' or post 'pure awareness' . I have to use the realisation reference so peeps can relate to the general term, but it is a bit of a red herring in some instances . There are no thoughts within being or pure awareness . There is no realisation . This is what I have been trying to explain to Andy as of late . So in regards to realisation there is a thought immediately after one returns to self awareness of the mind . What one concludes at this point is what is realised . It can be a milli second so to speak from no mind to mind . From being to realising . From no I AM awareness to I AM awareness . From no awareness of this world to awareness of this world . I think perhaps we would both agree that what is concluded of the mind isn't within pure awareness .. because a thought would taint it to some degree . OK. Let's try a different approach. What are you doing that results in a state of pure awareness beyond thought? Are you meditating? Are you using the word "realization" to refer to the state of mind that many of us call "nirvikalpa samadhi?" What happens from your POV prior to entering such a state of pure awareness? I have mentioned this many times, but to refresh your memory I had a feeling that was building up within me for several days which was getting stronger and stronger ... I was having a run on my running machine on one particular day and I knew I had to stop running and sit down immediately because the intensity was at it's most pinnacle point .. Within a few seconds of sitting down an energy encapsulated me for use of a better word and I was drawn / pulled / sucked within and without at the same time (in fact any directional pointer given wouldn't be understood in a linear fashion) It's what I understand to be part of the transcention process or what other's here described as being a vacuum of sorts that either Ramana or niz described regarding the heart centre's involvement in it .. From these moments onwards I had what I would relate to being a C.C. experiences and then went beyond that into what I regard as beyond I AM, beyond mind where what you are is present .
|
|