Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2020 22:56:56 GMT -5
Do you know the answer to this question?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 12, 2020 23:03:59 GMT -5
I haven't a clue what you are talking about . What is difficult to understand in regards to what I have said? I have said You only know that 'I AM' was not existing when I AM aware of I AM .I have said you only know you have been asleep the moment you wake up . Please tell me you understand this because you experience this daily .. You can't RECALL that I AM was absent .. You only know that I AM was absent when there is a thought of yourself that returns . You would know precisely nothing about what was present or absent while you were absent, even after returning from that absence. What is difficult to understand in regards to that? That's not true because what you returned from is also what you are. You cannot go anywhere that is not you because everything and no thing is you. You can never be absent from Self which is all there is. You are effectively arguing the case for separation.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 12, 2020 23:12:50 GMT -5
Nothing supersedes pure awareness as far as I know, but no one lives in a state of pure awareness more than a few hours, perhaps one or two days at the most, and subconscious mental functioning obviously continues because the body continues to live and breathe. NS has nothing to do with SR because NS is not a realization, and it doesn't help us understand anything. It MAY help trigger future realizations that will result in new understanding, but all we can say about it is that it's a deep state of mind. NS is like being unconscious but highly aware because the "outside world" does not exist for the organism abiding in that state. What does one learn from abiding in NS? Only that such a deep state of mind is possible, that it's blissful, that it relaxes the body and probably loosens up the intellect, and that it seems to precede various subsequent realizations. The only state of mind that really matters is SS because that state of mind can continue in the midst of ordinary life, and it manifests as peace, freedom, flow, and equanimity. It's like being at home, knowing you're at home, and knowing that home is the only place one can BE because it's the only place there IS. We could also call it "abiding in the Self, as Self" if we wanted to put it in spiritual terms. You think that NS has got nothing to do with SR because you think that SR is a woo woo experience which reveals relative truths about existence. That's clear enough because you talk about realizations in the plural, never about THE realization which is Self realization and which is beyond and prior to all concepts. What is this SS state you have made up? I (Self) knew something's going on between my wife (mind) and our driver (intellect). So, I (Self) divorced my wife (mind) and fired our driver (intellect). Ultimately, I (Self) realized I'm better off, after all these years, without them. 😊
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 12, 2020 23:13:19 GMT -5
Nisargadatta would agree with you. "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginning-less, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change." Yes. That's perfectly stated. If that's so then why do you think that nirvikalpa samadhi has nothing to do with SR, when SR itself is sahaja samadhi? Sahaja samadhi is Self Realization.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2020 2:48:09 GMT -5
You would know precisely nothing about what was present or absent while you were absent, even after returning from that absence. What is difficult to understand in regards to that? That's not true because what you returned from is also what you are. You cannot go anywhere that is not you because everything and no thing is you. You can never be absent from Self which is all there is. You are effectively arguing the case for separation. Yes absolutely, this is why I keep saying I AM is absent while what you are is present .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2020 2:55:49 GMT -5
I haven't a clue what you are talking about . What is difficult to understand in regards to what I have said? I have said You only know that 'I AM' was not existing when I AM aware of I AM .I have said you only know you have been asleep the moment you wake up . Please tell me you understand this because you experience this daily .. You can't RECALL that I AM was absent .. You only know that I AM was absent when there is a thought of yourself that returns . You would know precisely nothing about what was present or absent while you were absent, even after returning from that absence. What is difficult to understand in regards to that? What you are is present while I AM is absent . You don't have the comparison, this is why you and many on the forums don't actually understand what I AM saying . I don't say what was realized per se when I AM is absent or within the beingness itself do I? I don't because there was no-one there concluding that 'what we are' is consciousness or pure awareness amongst other things . This is why I spoke for months about conclusions and not Truthy realizations that peeps have the moment one regains I AM / self awareness. I repeat myself often because peeps either don't understand or they don't listen .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2020 3:18:33 GMT -5
Maybe there isn't a name for it yet lol .. But to me and perhaps only me, it makes perfect sense and it is not difficult to understand at all . There is I AM of the mind and there is no I AM beyond . What you are is present regardless of mind or no mind, self or no self, that is why I used the sun and the clouds analogy . When I AM is absent what you are simply is . What you are that simply is can be referred to as Bliss, Love, Peace etc, but there is no I AM present to realise this or experience this, it is simply what you are . Only when there is I AM awareness that returns then I AM can say I realised this and that and I AM this or that .. It's very straightforward .. Okay. I think I finally understand. I think what you're pointing to is the same thing that I point to when I say that pure awareness is foundational, and that even if the universe disappeared, awareness would still be here. That fact can be realized, but not through NS. .. Well perhaps yes, what I refer to as beyond mind where there is what you are present you would call pure awareness as a foundation . Pure awareness as a foundation is problematic as I see it because what I speak of is beyond awareness . If N.S. is pure awareness that is beyond I AM or where I AM is absent then you are saying it is still mindful and that perhaps is the difference you see . Either way when I AM awareness returns one can say I have realized pure awareness and in a way that is S.R. in my book because you have realized what you are .. You can't realize what you are as pure awareness and then return to I AM of the world and still have a sense of a so called illusory self . So S.R. must be attained via N.S. or beyond N.S. N.S. must equate to a realization had . Your idea that S.R. is seeing thru the illusory self must encompass realizing what one is as pure awareness .. Surely you must see that?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2020 3:26:34 GMT -5
I don't recall you ever using this term before in relation to NS. Is that precisely correct? I don't know how else to state it. From within the state of NS there is neither an outside nor an inside world; there is only pure awareness. NS is like the experience of pure awareness without an experiencer. It doesn't make sense logically. So when the experiencer returns the experiencer can then say what exactly? I AM pure awareness and not an illusory self peep?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2020 3:36:37 GMT -5
"Enlightened ego" is an oxymoron. That's not what I am saying. The context here is that the Self is all there is and that there is only what you are. Remember what Seth said, that the outer self (ego) is just the outer layer or outer face of the inner self (Source) and that the distinction between inner self and outer self is done rather arbitrarily and only for the sake of convenience so that we can talk about it this kind of stuff. The way we define ego or the false self has a lot to do with the human framework of reference. Because we all have that more or less identical framework (camouflage in Seth's terms), we can more or less agree on a definition for ego. Ok, thanks for clarifying what you meant. By any definition of ego that I'd accept, the false sense of self never unifies with what it was only ever a reflection of. And, the ego and the infinite are incomparable in terms of any possible definition of value that one might contrive. The way I'd put it, what is realized is the nature of the camouflage, which is seen clearly for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2020 3:48:50 GMT -5
Well I have spoken about beyond mind as not being a realisation as such it is only referred to as that when one returns back to self awareness . No-one it seems has a reference for what I am speaking of here . What I have asked as a question is straightforward . What supersedes pure awareness? S.R. doesn't does it, because S.R. is mindful according to you because it refers to seeing thru illusions . Nothing supersedes pure awareness as far as I know, but no one lives in a state of pure awareness more than a few hours, perhaps one or two days at the most, and subconscious mental functioning obviously continues because the body continues to live and breathe. NS has nothing to do with SR because NS is not a realization, and it doesn't help us understand anything. ... .. Well if nothing supersedes pure awareness and pure awareness is 'what you are' then this is realized the moment there is awareness of I AM present . Seeing thru illusions of the mind is what in comparison? Half way up the mountain compared to pure awareness that is at the mountains pinnacle? N.S. is a realization because one knows that 'they are that' which is beyond I AM . How can you say it doesn't help us understand anything, when one has the ultimate comparison had . Peeps that only shift self identities of the mind are not having the comparison of pure awareness are they, they are caught in a mind loop perceiving self in a million different way's, thinking this is not my true self and this is ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2020 4:12:37 GMT -5
Well I have spoken about beyond mind as not being a realisation as such it is only referred to as that when one returns back to self awareness . No-one it seems has a reference for what I am speaking of here . What I have asked as a question is straightforward . What supersedes pure awareness? S.R. doesn't does it, because S.R. is mindful according to you because it refers to seeing thru illusions . The only state of mind that really matters is SS because that state of mind can continue in the midst of ordinary life, and it manifests as peace, freedom, flow, and equanimity. It's like being at home, knowing you're at home, and knowing that home is the only place one can BE because it's the only place there IS. We could also call it "abiding in the Self, as Self" if we wanted to put it in spiritual terms. .. How many dudes do you know that entertain a state of S.S.? I mean what is ordinary life in relation to S.S.? When I am away from the hustle and bustle of a busy studio environment and I haven't got kid crisis's going on and when the car doesn't break down etc etc I am in a different state of mind .. When I am at home and I am able to run and meditate and do healing work again I am in a higher / finer state of mind so to speak . I used to have conversations with my mum about how much harder it is to Self realize in the west than it is in the east in regards to the known masters .. It was an interesting discussion and it depends on lots of aspects regarding what was concluded but I am certain that a dude that floats on by in a state of S.S. will have his wings clipped eventually when subjected to enormous amounts stress and trauma . S.S. is only experienced while the ocean is calm or moderately calm . We could even say that outbursts of anger at times for whatever reason is disrupting S.S. Perhaps it would be futile to debate these aspects, but in my mind there is either a state of S.S. or their isn't and maybe what that constitutes will be subjective as always .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2020 4:20:10 GMT -5
But you had to exist to recall/conclude that you weren't existing. Isn't this really the same argument you've been making for weeks? Yup, but he refuses to apply it to his experience. That's what I was arguing with him about. Somehow he can be aware of the fact of his own absence -- without having been there in any way during the absence. Totally inconsistent with what he says otherwise. You don't understand just like the frog doesn't . I am not refusing to apply anything to anything, If you understood what I am saying you would realize that . You said you don't see the logic in what I am saying and that's okay, but don't make it out that I am the one that misunderstands and refuses to apply what your and the frogs understandings are to mine . That's just silly . You both don't have the comparison like said and you need it to understand what I am saying .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 4:28:06 GMT -5
I don't know how else to state it. From within the state of NS there is neither an outside nor an inside world; there is only pure awareness. NS is like the experience of pure awareness without an experiencer. It doesn't make sense logically. So when the experiencer returns the experiencer can then say what exactly? I AM pure awareness and not an illusory self peep? Surely all the experiencer can ever say is "I am an experiencer."
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 13, 2020 4:29:17 GMT -5
Yup, but he refuses to apply it to his experience. That's what I was arguing with him about. Somehow he can be aware of the fact of his own absence -- without having been there in any way during the absence. Totally inconsistent with what he says otherwise. I think he means that he concludes after the fact the difference between the two states. Yes, eggsactly this is why I talk about comparisons had . This is why I gave the example of knowing you were asleep the moment you awaken . You are not in this instance knowing you are awake prior to awakening . What is difficult to understand about this? LOL .. we all experience this most morning's . I AM and beyond I AM, mind and no mind, self and no self is no different in one way because you know that I AM is present the moment there is awareness of I AM compared to not . The moment you regain I AM awareness you know that I AM was absent because what you are was still present . This I can understand as being misunderstood because peeps need the realization of what they are that is beyond I AM . If there is no comparison for this then it can be difficult to understand for sure .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 4:41:01 GMT -5
You would know precisely nothing about what was present or absent while you were absent, even after returning from that absence. What is difficult to understand in regards to that? What you are is present while I AM is absent . You don't have the comparison, this is why you and many on the forums don't actually understand what I AM saying .
I don't say what was realized per se when I AM is absent or within the beingness itself do I? I don't because there was no-one there concluding that 'what we are' is consciousness or pure awareness amongst other things . This is why I spoke for months about conclusions and not Truthy realizations that peeps have the moment one regains I AM / self awareness. I repeat myself often because peeps either don't understand or they don't listen . Here's a waste paper bin to throw that idea into..
|
|