|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 11, 2020 17:53:03 GMT -5
I think for most of the free world, it is. Agreed. There obviously is a false sense of self if one "is mistaking the limited sense of self to be what you are." I think that's the definition of a false sense of self. Yes, that passes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 11, 2020 17:55:37 GMT -5
How many sages have you heard of sinking into deep depression and anxiety? I suggest that you read her book to get a better sense of what she experienced/encountered. I'm not claiming anything about how realized she became, but her story is extremely compelling. FWIW, there have been many sages who've become depressed or experienced anxiety, and some have committed suicide. Ikkyu is one of the more famous cases. The future is unknowable, and given the right conditions, it could happen to anybody no matter how enlightened they think they are. Sages have also been alcoholics and chain smokers, and several have had psychotic breaks, so there are no guarantees. Sages remain human, and they're therefore susceptible to the same illnesses, both physical or mental, as any other people. I don't know if satch knows Segal practiced TM. She was very high up in the organization.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 11, 2020 19:33:57 GMT -5
"One can have numerous experiences of NS--pure awareness beyond any sense of I am--, and still not attain SR." I propose this quote by ZD to be made the masthead of every page on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2020 22:30:04 GMT -5
You are saying exactly what SDP is saying, that there is a false sense of self. How can that be? There is a real sense of self which isn't lost after THE realization which is Self realization. After SR this limited self and ego are in unity with an expanded sense of unboundedness. The infinite doesn't get realized. Awareness doesn't get realized. It is the ego that gets realized and which recognizes that it has the same value as the infinite. Jiva = Atman = Brahman Clearly it is the personal aspect which proclaims, "I am awake" as Buddha did on the road when he was asked by a passing stranger to identify himself. I have never agreed nor will I ever agree with those who say there is no one here to be enlightened. When I read someone say that it is consciousness that is typing I just wince.😀 I'm not interested in satoris because they are insights. They're just spiritual experiences. You might refer to one of them as A realization but one of them or many of them are not THE realization when all dissolves into a spontaneous flow of life in unity, whether it is temporary or permanent. It doesn't matter. I don't really disagree with you re: ego. But the story you have been telling, that's only half the story or half the truth. And only knowing have the story and clinging to half truths can be dangerous business. You see, if NS doesn't result in seeing thru the false sense of self then it's very likely that what we have as a result is a spiritual ego with a literal god complex. "Enlightened ego" is an oxymoron.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2020 22:32:34 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. telling the difference requires thought That's after the fact. The difference is more than thought .. unless it's a clever proof or a well-designed api or other sort of analysis, as aesthetics can apply to those as well. Criticism of creative work takes thought, but this isn't necessarily so for appreciating it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2020 22:58:45 GMT -5
I AM is the sense of existence. There will be nothing to recall from when there was no sense of existence. Here's what I can add. Tolle claimed that he didn't remember anything from the moment he got sucked into the vortex until he woke up the next morning. When someone comes out of NS, it's a similar situation, but not exactly. One can remember what happened just prior to everything disappearing, and one can remember that there existed a state of pure awareness without content, but unless a clock were right in front of someone, there would be no idea of how long one was in that state or anything else about that state except that it was deeply peaceful, blissful, and empty of content. While one is in that state, there is no knowledge of anything, and there is no sense of existence. Satch has more experience with deep samadhi, so he might be able to add something more than this. I think it's obvious that some sort of subconscious mental functioning continues in deep samadhi (otherwise nothing about it could be remembered), but apparently the state goes so deep that even the sense of I am disappears. That's why I consider pure awareness to be foundational. During a CC it became obvious that awareness is infinite and that awareness would remain even if the "physical" universe totally disappeared. He remembered hearing a voice emanating from his chest saying "resist nothing". Which is quite applicable to the topic of surrender. I kept reading despite that detail.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2020 4:40:02 GMT -5
I believe what resulted in was not a C.C. I had spoken of experiencing that prior to going beyond that . C.C's are of the mind and there is a knowing of sorts . What is a bit silly in my option is that peeps can label stuff like pure awareness absent of anything I AM related and then say it's not S.R. In certain circles pure awareness is what you are ... so what is beyond pure awareness lol ... If peeps want to suggest that what you are is pure awareness and what that is, is a C.C. experience then what's the bloody difference of that to N.S. or S.R. It's going to be purely subjective isn't it . In a C.C. the universe didn't disappear did it . The awareness of the earth ties may have disappeared but cosmic consciousness is mindful . What is beyond mind in your opinion . Is S.R. mindful? Anything mindful in my eyes will just reflect self reflections via the individual self so S.R. has to encompass beyond this . So if there is in your option beyond pure awareness then I am eager to here of it . Beyond mind in my understanding is beyond consciousness and beyond awareness . When I spoke about what happened to me, I didn't mention either . All that we can do via language is attempt to relate our own experiences and realizations with those of others. I can tell you that NS, in which everything disappears but awareness remains, is not equivalent to SR. SR is a distinct event--a seeing through of the illusion of personal selfhood. One can have numerous experiences of NS--pure awareness beyond any sense of I am--, and still not attain SR. Most people, after sensory perception and thoughts return, still imagine that they are separate volitional entities who entered a state of psychological unity without content and remained in that state for some period of time. They would not know how long that period of time was unless they happened to see a clock before and afterwards. Some people stay in that state of pure awareness for more than 12 hours, but typically the state lasts between 1 and 5 hours. From what I've read about Ramana he apparently stayed in deep states of samadhi for very long periods of time, and in some cases for more than two days at a time. .. See this is just a mindful reflection of self . You realise you are not purely one thing/aspect and you believe that you are this instead of that . This is mindful neti neti stuff isn't it . Self is everything, so you cannot relate Self Realisation to seeing through one aspect of self to reveal another . It is the hall of mirrors isn't it . Seeing through the illusion is based upon what you are that is not that . Satch say's a lot that there is no illusion in this respect and it touches upon there being no false I's .. Let's use the swan analogy here, the swan realises it's a swan and not an ugly duckling, so perhaps your implying here that the swan has Self Realised? I would say that the swan is just seeing itself mindfully in a different way, it's not Self though from a pop . It's still the wave and not the ocean and it's still mind . If a dude had a N.S. realisation then this supersedes S.R. using your premise hands down for this is beyond S.R. You can't have a N.S. realisation and not realise Self . To suggest that peeps who have N.S. realisations don't necessarily S.R. makes no sense, it's the cart before the horse . Let me put it this way, what is beyond pure awareness as a realisation had .. What supersedes pure awareness ..
Seeing through the the so called illusory self doesn't that is for sure .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 4:44:11 GMT -5
Okay. I had forgotten that aspect of your story. It sounds very much like what happened to Tolle. He got sucked into what he called a kind of "vortex," heard the words "Resist nothing," and then the whole world disappeared. He woke up the next day to a different world and an amazing psychological transformation. He claimed that about 80% of his past mind-talk (which had been extremely negative) had disappeared and it never returned. He didn't know what had happened to him, but he went from a state of extreme inner turmoil and suicidal thoughts to a state of peace literally overnight. He did not realize or understand until much later what had happened to him. In short, he dis-identified with his past ideas about himself, and he also realized that reality is not what he had thought it was. Falling into deep samadhi is similar to falling into the vortex that Tolle describes because it feels as if one gets sucked into that state after passing a kind of "event horizon." After that happens, everything disappears, including any sense of I am. In that state there is only pure awareness without thoughts or perceptions. Nothing can be known in that state because it's a state of non-dual awareness. The only thing that can be remembered afterwards is that it was a unified state of pure awareness empty of all content.
It sounds to me as if what happened to you was a CC event similar to what happened to Tolle. Zen people distinguish between those kinds of events and satori, which is equivalent to SR. Some people apparently attain SR as a result of a CC event, but that's pretty rare. SR is usually a separate realization/event. AAR, I now have a better understanding of what you've been writing about I believe what resulted in was not a C.C. I had spoken of experiencing that prior to going beyond that . C.C's are of the mind and there is a knowing of sorts . What is a bit silly in my opinion is that peeps can label stuff like pure awareness absent of anything I AM related and then say it's not S.R. In certain circles pure awareness is what you are ... so what is beyond pure awareness lol ... If peeps want to suggest that what you are is pure awareness and what that is, is a C.C. experience then what's the bloody difference of that to N.S. or S.R. It's going to be purely subjective isn't it . In a C.C. the universe didn't disappear did it . The awareness of the earth ties may have disappeared but cosmic consciousness is mindful .
What is beyond mind in your opinion . Is S.R. mindful? Anything mindful in my eyes will just reflect the individual self so S.R. has to encompass beyond this . So if there is in your optinion beyond pure awareness then I am eager to here of it . Beyond mind in my understanding is beyond consciousness and beyond awareness . When I spoke about what happened to me, I didn't mention either . That may be an important distinction, though who's to say what the term 'mindful' really means.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2020 4:58:45 GMT -5
I believe what resulted in was not a C.C. I had spoken of experiencing that prior to going beyond that . C.C's are of the mind and there is a knowing of sorts . What is a bit silly in my option is that peeps can label stuff like pure awareness absent of anything I AM related and then say it's not S.R. In certain circles pure awareness is what you are ... so what is beyond pure awareness lol ... If peeps want to suggest that what you are is pure awareness and what that is, is a C.C. experience then what's the bloody difference of that to N.S. or S.R. It's going to be purely subjective isn't it . In a C.C. the universe didn't disappear did it . The awareness of the earth ties may have disappeared but cosmic consciousness is mindful . What is beyond mind in your opinion . Is S.R. mindful? Anything mindful in my eyes will just reflect self reflections via the individual self so S.R. has to encompass beyond this . So if there is in your option beyond pure awareness then I am eager to here of it . Beyond mind in my understanding is beyond consciousness and beyond awareness . When I spoke about what happened to me, I didn't mention either . You are correct that during most CC's consciousness of the world does not cease (although it is transformed), but perhaps we need a new word to designate the kind of disappearance that Tolle wrote about in his book. His experience/event doesn't sound like NS because in his case even awareness ceased after he got sucked into the psychological vortex he tried to describe. IOW he was unaware of either the world or awareness until he woke up the next morning. It was almost as if he were knocked unconscious by whatever happened to him internally/psychologically. Whatever happened to him during those hours resulted in a complete psychological transformation, but I don't know if that included SR. I doubt that it did based upon what he wrote in his first book. Perhaps later he attained SR, but I've never read anything about that. .. This is why mind and no mind, self and no self come into it and peeps need the comparison like said . This is why peeps can experience many mind states and believe self to be no more when it is still present, there is just a sense of self that has changed . This is why the suggestion of peeps having amnesia isn't correct for peeps not having a self reference lol . It's still mindful when there is a shift in self identity saying I AM this and not that . I have only read a handful of quotes and watched a few brief youtube videos of Tolle and something doesn't sit too well with me for many a reason but that doesn't mean that I don't believe he has had a realisation of sorts . The brief video that I watched showed that he was very well versed / educated with other teachings / teachers and all though the words were coming out of his mouth, I didn't really get the impression that it was him speaking from the heart of his experiences .. but that's my intuitive thought about this .. It kinda transforms and reflects the whole merchandise / attachments / millions of dollars in the bank scenarios that I have touched upon before .. Something isn't lived in reflection of what is taught here .. For Tolle to say what he did was not what I had undergone at all . To have no memory of what transpired is what I have said to Andy about being knocked unconscious .. What Tolle experienced wasn't beyond mind and not what I have been speaking about . . This is why I have spoken about what you are being present when I AM is absent . This is why I have also spoken about peeps not remembering being conscious when sleeping at night . When a peep who sleeps at night only knows they were asleep the moment they awaken means that there was no initial awareness of what you are being present until one awakes . This is key to understand. Beyond mind and beyond I AM there is what you are present . You are that . The bliss or the Love or the Peace that is associated to what you are is present, but these are only mindful associations put forward once I AM awareness returns . This is why the clouds obscuring the Sun is a good analogy because the sun always is whether there is mindfulness or not . When the mindful clouds dissipate there is no I AM but the sun remains . To suggest that you can't remember the sun means that the clouds were still present in some shape or form . 'Remembering' as a word reference here is going to cause issues but any words will be because they will reflect a mindful association .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2020 5:17:18 GMT -5
If we speak of the ugly duckling story, the swan thought it was an ugly duckling . I think you are suggesting that there is not a false self present, there has only ever been the swan . A false sense of what you are is simply a thought .. That doesn't constitute a false self entity so to speak . This is why when the Pilgrim say's the false self types, it isn't a false self that actually types it is what you are that types that thinks it is this or that . I agree with you in that there is only Self . I also agree that there is only Self. The false sense of self is a thought structure of some kind, and when it collapses, the truth is realized (the ugly duckling realizes that it is a swan rather than an ugly duckling). This relates to what I asked in an earlier post, this reflects a swan realising it is a swan, but the swan reference is still a self reference and not Self . Self cannot be realised through a pop . This is why pure awareness supersedes your version of S.R. My version of S.R. is Self, not a self pop seeing thru things . Seeing through illusions is shifting identities for use of a better word suggesting I AM this and not that . Beyond mind there are no truths relating to what you really are .. We agree that the false sense of self is a thought structure of some kind but that also applies to a true sense doesn't it .
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2020 6:40:17 GMT -5
I also agree that there is only Self. The false sense of self is a thought structure of some kind, and when it collapses, the truth is realized (the ugly duckling realizes that it is a swan rather than an ugly duckling). This relates to what I asked in an earlier post, this reflects a swan realising it is a swan, but the swan reference is still a self reference and not Self . Self cannot be realised through a pop . This is why pure awareness supersedes your version of S.R. My version of S.R. is Self, not a self pop seeing thru things . Seeing through illusions is shifting identities for use of a better word suggesting I AM this and not that . Beyond mind there are no truths relating to what you really are .. We agree that the false sense of self is a thought structure of some kind but that also applies to a true sense doesn't it .No, because one thought structure is not being replaced by another thought structure. That's why the ugly duckling story is a poor analogy for SR. When Niz said, "I am THAT," he was using THAT as a pointer, not as something with boundaries that's definable.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2020 7:26:58 GMT -5
This relates to what I asked in an earlier post, this reflects a swan realising it is a swan, but the swan reference is still a self reference and not Self . Self cannot be realised through a pop . This is why pure awareness supersedes your version of S.R. My version of S.R. is Self, not a self pop seeing thru things . Seeing through illusions is shifting identities for use of a better word suggesting I AM this and not that . Beyond mind there are no truths relating to what you really are .. We agree that the false sense of self is a thought structure of some kind but that also applies to a true sense doesn't it .No, because one thought structure is not being replaced by another thought structure. That's why the ugly duckling story is a poor analogy for SR. When Niz said, "I am THAT," he was using THAT as a pointer, not as something with boundaries that's definable. Butt S.R. teacher dudes speak about a true self or the real self don't they . They have the supposed comparison, otherwise they would not be able to say what is true or false .. It's all thought based structures . This reminds me of what my mum said to me yonks ago about positive and negative thinking for both patterns of thought are still mindful .. What your pointing at using my mums line of thought is that the true self is beyond both negative and positive thinking but it isn't . We are not speaking of THAT as a pointer we are speaking about seeing thru the illusory selfhood which in your eyes is S.R. If you see thru illusions you are suggesting that there is the duality of true and false at play and that paradigm is not beyond a thought structure . This is why pure awareness trumps S.R. using your terms . What supersedes pure awareness? By the way Z.D. I had Courtois mentioned to me in my spirit circle last month, I looked on line earlier after I noticed you mentioning her . I could find anything online . What was the name of her book?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2020 8:13:11 GMT -5
I believe what resulted in was not a C.C. I had spoken of experiencing that prior to going beyond that . C.C's are of the mind and there is a knowing of sorts . What is a bit silly in my opinion is that peeps can label stuff like pure awareness absent of anything I AM related and then say it's not S.R. In certain circles pure awareness is what you are ... so what is beyond pure awareness lol ... If peeps want to suggest that what you are is pure awareness and what that is, is a C.C. experience then what's the bloody difference of that to N.S. or S.R. It's going to be purely subjective isn't it . In a C.C. the universe didn't disappear did it . The awareness of the earth ties may have disappeared but cosmic consciousness is mindful .
What is beyond mind in your opinion . Is S.R. mindful? Anything mindful in my eyes will just reflect the individual self so S.R. has to encompass beyond this . So if there is in your optinion beyond pure awareness then I am eager to here of it . Beyond mind in my understanding is beyond consciousness and beyond awareness . When I spoke about what happened to me, I didn't mention either . That may be an important distinction, though who's to say what the term 'mindful' really means. Yes, that's another word that's clearly interpreted in many different ways.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2020 8:40:42 GMT -5
No, because one thought structure is not being replaced by another thought structure. That's why the ugly duckling story is a poor analogy for SR. When Niz said, "I am THAT," he was using THAT as a pointer, not as something with boundaries that's definable. Butt S.R. teacher dudes speak about a true self or the real self don't they . They have the supposed comparison, otherwise they would not be able to say what is true or false .. It's all thought based structures . This reminds me of what my mum said to me yonks ago about positive and negative thinking for both patterns of thought are still mindful .. What your pointing at using my mums line of thought is that the true self is beyond both negative and positive thinking but it isn't . We are not speaking of THAT as a pointer we are speaking about seeing thru the illusory selfhood which in your eyes is S.R. If you see thru illusions you are suggesting that there is the duality of true and false at play and that paradigm is not beyond a thought structure . This is why pure awareness trumps S.R. using your terms . What supersedes pure awareness? By the way Z.D. I had Courtois mentioned to me in my spirit circle last month, I looked on line earlier after I noticed you mentioning her . I could find anything online . What was the name of her book? Her original book--"An Experience of Enlightenment"-- is out of print, but her story is included in the last chapter of "The Hazy Moon of Enlightenment" published by Wisdom Publications. It's a fascinating story and well worth a read. As a result of talking to her on the phone and writing many letters back and forth, it was clear to me that for many years she lived in a state of sahaja samadhi (although at that time I didn't know the name for that state). Unfortunately, because she never saw through the illusion of selfhood, she concluded, erroneously in my opinion, that she had received a gift, but later lost it. If she had realized that there was no separate entity involved in what happened, she would have realized that there was no one who either gained or lost by what happened. Her major conclusion, after encountering Zen people, was that a daily meditation practice was essential for holding onto SS. Toward the end of her life she knew that she had never regained what she thought she had lost and she was pursuing biofeedback and other similar avenues in an attempt to regain SS. If she were still alive today, I would say to her, "There was no Helen Courtois who got enlightened, and there was no Helen Courtois who lost enlightenment because what you are is not Helen Courtois."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 12, 2020 8:49:41 GMT -5
I AM is the sense of existence. There will be nothing to recall from when there was no sense of existence. Here's what I can add. Tolle claimed that he didn't remember anything from the moment he got sucked into the vortex until he woke up the next morning. When someone comes out of NS, it's a similar situation, but not exactly. One can remember what happened just prior to everything disappearing, and one can remember that there existed a state of pure awareness without content, but unless a clock were right in front of someone, there would be no idea of how long one was in that state or anything else about that state except that it was deeply peaceful, blissful, and empty of content. While one is in that state, there is no knowledge of anything, and there is no sense of existence. Satch has more experience with deep samadhi, so he might be able to add something more than this. I think it's obvious that some sort of subconscious mental functioning continues in deep samadhi (otherwise nothing about it could be remembered), but apparently the state goes so deep that even the sense of I am disappears. That's why I consider pure awareness to be foundational. During a CC it became obvious that awareness is infinite and that awareness would remain even if the "physical" universe totally disappeared. Would you say there is a kind of feeling present, just nothing we would normally associate with mentation?
|
|