|
Samadhi
Feb 15, 2020 16:36:12 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Feb 15, 2020 16:36:12 GMT -5
If you're going on a silent retreat then that obviously means you're a seeker who isn't enlightened. Loser! Haha! Well, almost all of us on this forum are losers to some degree. The only question that Ramana seems to pose is, "Is it possible to lose everything?" I suspect that most people who have attained SR would claim that the sense of selfhood after SR is significantly different than it was when it was still believed that one was a separate volitional entity at the center of whatever was happening. Seeing through the illusion of the SVP fosters a sense of flow because it's realized that whatever is happening is a function of Source. Ramana seems to be distinguishing between a state of flow that retains some degree of personal self-referentiality and a state of flow where there is no self-referentiality at all--where everything becomes impersonal due to the total eradication of ego (which Ramana defined as equivalent to mind). If this is the case, then what Reefs called "deep flow" must be exceedingly rare if it becomes a permanent state rather than a transient state. From his description of what happened to him, Tolle seems to have entered such a state of deep flow after his "vortex" experience, and it apparently lasted a long time, but perhaps ceased after he began to think about what had happened to him. This is just speculation, but it would be interesting to hear what he would say about that. That brings us back to the OP which I was getting around to responding to. I'll write about sitting samadhi in a different reply. While the possibility of a permanent end to self-referential thought and emotion isn't one that I can deny just because it's not my experience, the flip side is that I interpret Ramana's ego and mind death pointers as the realization of the SVP for what it is. I can attest that walking/talking/functioning with no sense of "I" for a sustained period of time is very possible, quite blissful, lends itself to optimal function, and is bound to inform mind. When I wrote this poem I'd been pursuing both active and sitting meditation for months, sometimes consciously involving self-inquiry. During this time self-referential thought and emotion were something that I'd considered suspect, if not at sometimes even problematic. Clearly, silence/stillness can be the key to many locks, from existential questioning on through to life dilemma's. And, of course, as you've pointed out before, the two can overlap. For me the sitting practice was sort of a guide to the eyes-open meditation, with the latter as ultimately far more revealing. But sitting meditation served as a reference point for what to carry around and look for in action, as it was happening. And I completely agree that self-referential thought and emotion have the potential as dharma bells for anyone in the situation I was in at the time. There are many existential insights and realizations possible, but the one that you call out as necessary for the ultimate peace is singular. Something comes to an end with it, and that's what I take Ramana to be referring to. It's a pattern of thought and emotion centered on a false sense of identity. Niz was quoted as referring to it as "the person" more than once. As far as I recall off the top of my head, Tolle calls it ego, but, unlike Niz, doesn't suggest it can permanently end. Embodiment, to my eye, is something that can happen either before or after this realization. What comes before may make one more accident prone, but that's a two-sided coin, as it can also form the kernel of a rock for the false-identity to cling. Afterward, it's all a matter of depth and degree, and while some measure of embodiment is likely a foregone conclusion of that ultimate realization, what I'd say is even more important is the eventual end of any residual confusion. Until that realization happens, the existential question will always lead to contradiction. Personally, coming to grips with that by confronting it, but not getting comfortable with it, was the biggest catalyst. Now, I can't rule out the possible potential for embodiment to have a facet and depth to it that I'm unfamiliar with, it just doesn't seem to me to be an issue. Life has it's ups and downs, and for me, certain areas of material resistance seem almost unavoidable and inevitable. These lead to pain, definitely entail self-referential thought and emotion, and anyone from the outside looking in could reasonably conclude that there is ego involved. But this having seen the thing for what it is, it can't be unseen.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 16, 2020 8:52:29 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Feb 16, 2020 8:52:29 GMT -5
Haha! Well, almost all of us on this forum are losers to some degree. The only question that Ramana seems to pose is, "Is it possible to lose everything?" I suspect that most people who have attained SR would claim that the sense of selfhood after SR is significantly different than it was when it was still believed that one was a separate volitional entity at the center of whatever was happening. Seeing through the illusion of the SVP fosters a sense of flow because it's realized that whatever is happening is a function of Source. Ramana seems to be distinguishing between a state of flow that retains some degree of personal self-referentiality and a state of flow where there is no self-referentiality at all--where everything becomes impersonal due to the total eradication of ego (which Ramana defined as equivalent to mind). If this is the case, then what Reefs called "deep flow" must be exceedingly rare if it becomes a permanent state rather than a transient state. From his description of what happened to him, Tolle seems to have entered such a state of deep flow after his "vortex" experience, and it apparently lasted a long time, but perhaps ceased after he began to think about what had happened to him. This is just speculation, but it would be interesting to hear what he would say about that. That brings us back to the OP which I was getting around to responding to. I'll write about sitting samadhi in a different reply. While the possibility of a permanent end to self-referential thought and emotion isn't one that I can deny just because it's not my experience, the flip side is that I interpret Ramana's ego and mind death pointers as the realization of the SVP for what it is. I can attest that walking/talking/functioning with no sense of "I" for a sustained period of time is very possible, quite blissful, lends itself to optimal function, and is bound to inform mind. When I wrote this poem I'd been pursuing both active and sitting meditation for months, sometimes consciously involving self-inquiry. During this time self-referential thought and emotion were something that I'd considered suspect, if not at sometimes even problematic. Clearly, silence/stillness can be the key to many locks, from existential questioning on through to life dilemma's. And, of course, as you've pointed out before, the two can overlap. For me the sitting practice was sort of a guide to the eyes-open meditation, with the latter as ultimately far more revealing. But sitting meditation served as a reference point for what to carry around and look for in action, as it was happening. And I completely agree that self-referential thought and emotion have the potential as dharma bells for anyone in the situation I was in at the time. There are many existential insights and realizations possible, but the one that you call out as necessary for the ultimate peace is singular. Something comes to an end with it, and that's what I take Ramana to be referring to. It's a pattern of thought and emotion centered on a false sense of identity. Niz was quoted as referring to it as "the person" more than once. As far as I recall off the top of my head, Tolle calls it ego, but, unlike Niz, doesn't suggest it can permanently end. Embodiment, to my eye, is something that can happen either before or after this realization. What comes before may make one more accident prone, but that's a two-sided coin, as it can also form the kernel of a rock for the false-identity to cling. Afterward, it's all a matter of depth and degree, and while some measure of embodiment is likely a foregone conclusion of that ultimate realization, what I'd say is even more important is the eventual end of any residual confusion. Until that realization happens, the existential question will always lead to contradiction. Personally, coming to grips with that by confronting it, but not getting comfortable with it, was the biggest catalyst. Now, I can't rule out the possible potential for embodiment to have a facet and depth to it that I'm unfamiliar with, it just doesn't seem to me to be an issue. Life has it's ups and downs, and for me, certain areas of material resistance seem almost unavoidable and inevitable. These lead to pain, definitely entail self-referential thought and emotion, and anyone from the outside looking in could reasonably conclude that there is ego involved. But this having seen the thing for what it is, it can't be unseen. I would have agreed with all of this in the past, but now not so much. I do think you're right about it being a matter of depth and degree. Tolle guessed that 80% of his thinking ceased after getting "sucked into the vortex," but he doesn't specify what degree of self-referential thought remained or how the amount or type of his thinking subsequently changed in the years that followed. As an intellectual, he became interested in what happened to him, and I suspect that his investigation of that topic probably led to a more conventional life than his "park bench phase" of life. If neuroscientists interested in this issue are correct, then there are possibly one or more "neural circuits" (for want of a better term) associated with self-referential thinking that are responsible for what they call "the default mode network" of most adults. Perhaps one circuit is responsible for the usual sense of selfhood we refer to as "the SVP," but perhaps there's another much deeper circuit responsible for whatever kind of self-referential thinking remains after the illusion of the SVP is seen through. Clearly, after SR, a human knows its name, and knows that the name refers to the character. Beyond that minimal level of what we might call "form-referentiality" perhaps it's the amount or type of thinking that determines whether anything we could refer to as "ego" is extant. Looking back, I can say with certainty that something energetic happened as a result of a CC in 1984 that wiped out all personal self interest for about three days. Ironically, during that period of time I still thought that there was a "me," but that "me" wanted nothing for itself and had no interest in itself. It was also a period of time that could be accurately characterized as "heaven on earth." After three days, a consciously-tangible energetic shift occurred that made me think the body was going to die. It was that shift that made me aware that the concept of "chi" was based upon something actual because whatever was happening could be felt in the body, and it was so powerful that I didn't think that the physical heart would be able to survive the stress of it. As it turned out, the heart rhythms eventually came back to normal; the energy that could be felt moving within the body ceased to be felt; and the prior sense of being an SVP returned along with the usual self-referential thinking patterns. I can only speculate about this, but if, after the illusion of the SVP were seen through, the kind of energetic shift took place that occurred following the CC that I know is possible, then that would be a whole different ballgame from the state of flow that I think most people try to describe following SR. In that state there would be no thought of oneself whatsoever (other than the knowing of form-referentiality), no fear whatsoever, and nothing remotely conventional in one's outlook on life. If that is what Ramana is pointing to with the term "sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi," then that is much much rarer than what usually occurs following SR.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 16, 2020 15:55:16 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2020 15:55:16 GMT -5
That brings us back to the OP which I was getting around to responding to. I'll write about sitting samadhi in a different reply. While the possibility of a permanent end to self-referential thought and emotion isn't one that I can deny just because it's not my experience, the flip side is that I interpret Ramana's ego and mind death pointers as the realization of the SVP for what it is. I can attest that walking/talking/functioning with no sense of "I" for a sustained period of time is very possible, quite blissful, lends itself to optimal function, and is bound to inform mind. When I wrote this poem I'd been pursuing both active and sitting meditation for months, sometimes consciously involving self-inquiry. During this time self-referential thought and emotion were something that I'd considered suspect, if not at sometimes even problematic. Clearly, silence/stillness can be the key to many locks, from existential questioning on through to life dilemma's. And, of course, as you've pointed out before, the two can overlap. For me the sitting practice was sort of a guide to the eyes-open meditation, with the latter as ultimately far more revealing. But sitting meditation served as a reference point for what to carry around and look for in action, as it was happening. And I completely agree that self-referential thought and emotion have the potential as dharma bells for anyone in the situation I was in at the time. There are many existential insights and realizations possible, but the one that you call out as necessary for the ultimate peace is singular. Something comes to an end with it, and that's what I take Ramana to be referring to. It's a pattern of thought and emotion centered on a false sense of identity. Niz was quoted as referring to it as "the person" more than once. As far as I recall off the top of my head, Tolle calls it ego, but, unlike Niz, doesn't suggest it can permanently end. Embodiment, to my eye, is something that can happen either before or after this realization. What comes before may make one more accident prone, but that's a two-sided coin, as it can also form the kernel of a rock for the false-identity to cling. Afterward, it's all a matter of depth and degree, and while some measure of embodiment is likely a foregone conclusion of that ultimate realization, what I'd say is even more important is the eventual end of any residual confusion. Until that realization happens, the existential question will always lead to contradiction. Personally, coming to grips with that by confronting it, but not getting comfortable with it, was the biggest catalyst. Now, I can't rule out the possible potential for embodiment to have a facet and depth to it that I'm unfamiliar with, it just doesn't seem to me to be an issue. Life has it's ups and downs, and for me, certain areas of material resistance seem almost unavoidable and inevitable. These lead to pain, definitely entail self-referential thought and emotion, and anyone from the outside looking in could reasonably conclude that there is ego involved. But this having seen the thing for what it is, it can't be unseen. I would have agreed with all of this in the past, but now not so much. I do think you're right about it being a matter of depth and degree. Tolle guessed that 80% of his thinking ceased after getting "sucked into the vortex," but he doesn't specify what degree of self-referential thought remained or how the amount or type of his thinking subsequently changed in the years that followed. As an intellectual, he became interested in what happened to him, and I suspect that his investigation of that topic probably led to a more conventional life than his "park bench phase" of life. If neuroscientists interested in this issue are correct, then there are possibly one or more "neural circuits" (for want of a better term) associated with self-referential thinking that are responsible for what they call "the default mode network" of most adults. Perhaps one circuit is responsible for the usual sense of selfhood we refer to as "the SVP," but perhaps there's another much deeper circuit responsible for whatever kind of self-referential thinking remains after the illusion of the SVP is seen through. Clearly, after SR, a human knows its name, and knows that the name refers to the character. Beyond that minimal level of what we might call "form-referentiality" perhaps it's the amount or type of thinking that determines whether anything we could refer to as "ego" is extant. Looking back, I can say with certainty that something energetic happened as a result of a CC in 1984 that wiped out all personal self interest for about three days. Ironically, during that period of time I still thought that there was a "me," but that "me" wanted nothing for itself and had no interest in itself. It was also a period of time that could be accurately characterized as "heaven on earth." After three days, a consciously-tangible energetic shift occurred that made me think the body was going to die. It was that shift that made me aware that the concept of "chi" was based upon something actual because whatever was happening could be felt in the body, and it was so powerful that I didn't think that the physical heart would be able to survive the stress of it. As it turned out, the heart rhythms eventually came back to normal; the energy that could be felt moving within the body ceased to be felt; and the prior sense of being an SVP returned along with the usual self-referential thinking patterns. I can only speculate about this, but if, after the illusion of the SVP were seen through, the kind of energetic shift took place that occurred following the CC that I know is possible, then that would be a whole different ballgame from the state of flow that I think most people try to describe following SR. In that state there would be no thought of oneself whatsoever (other than the knowing of form-referentiality), no fear whatsoever, and nothing remotely conventional in one's outlook on life. If that is what Ramana is pointing to with the term "sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi," then that is much much rarer than what usually occurs following SR. Right, well, as I wrote, I don't rule out that such a state is possible, and yes, I think I understand what you mean by an evolution in your thinking from what you've written in years prior. My "brass hasp" experience was somewhat similar to your '84 telephone ringing, but spread out over a longer period of time. In one sense it was probably less intense than what you relate but I think that speaks to a differential in shift of outlook, and I have a theory about that which I won't digress into. While I didn't have the urge to give all my possessions away, the shift saved my marriage. There was this one instant when my wife was very bitterly berating me, and to which I would have reacted, where it was just sailing right through, and out of surprise I found myself (literally) asking "who is this ' you' she keeps on referring to? ". It was a period of intermittent, but complete absence of any "I-thought". Before that experience, I was a tolerant but condescending agnostic, and afterward the entirety of the mental furniture was completely re-arranged in my existential living room. That's probably the most significant alteration to the plot line of the character's story, but there were other side-threads that spun out well. Prior to this I was motivated to succeed materially out of a sort of intense inner spite. Not directed anywhere in particular, just a negative urge to separate and insulate via wealth. When that went it was, quite frankly, a bit of a free-fall that intensified a period of semi-ski-bum-life I'd wandered into previously. Since then I've re-established a work ethic, but it not only never reformed the same way, I've been quite conscious of the seeds of that movement of mind any time it re-appears. I'd agree that the sort of perfected sainthood you're describing is probably quite rare. Anything I'd write about that state would be analogous to Joe C. Trance writing about nonduality. I draw a distinction between awakening - which is what my brass hasp was - and the end of seeking, and so anything I write about perfected sainthood would be similar to someone who has kensho'd but not SR'd writing about "enlightenment". I don't want to speak to the possibility of vice-versa (SR'd but not kensho'd) as that's outside of my direct experience. Along those lines I find dependent origination to be a very useful. Some body/minds are more prone to awakening and/or SR than other's. To ask why that it is to - ultimately - count grains of sand on a beach. Some people misread that point as the suggestion that there's nothing that someone interested in awakening/SR can do, and (heee hee), of course, they're both right and wrong in that interpretation, at the same time. To paraphrase what you've written in the past, it's all ever "THIS, thising". We might pose a version of the existential question along the lines of: is there anything anyone can do to make themselves more likely to move toward perfected sainthood? Perhaps the gnosis of the absence of limitation, the gnosis of THIS, lends some genuine insight into the possibility of "complete and permanent ego/mind death", or perhaps the assumption of that insight in and of itself is an occlusion. Not being a perfected saint, I can only speculate. With those disclaimers, I'll circle back to dependent origination and add the opinion that the life of a perfected saint is going to spin out in ways that reflect the conditions in which they live and the influences that pre-conditioned them as human beings. To get an idea of what I mean, in the extremes, consider the differences in the story of Jesus and the Buddha. Consider the differences between the lives of Niz and Ramana.
Life goes on, for as long as the body is drawing breath, even for a perfected saint, and the way that this life will go on might mean a major discontinuity in life situation, or, in the THIS that THIS's, it might not. But trying to work backward, from the idea of a perfected saint, to infer what the life of a perfected saint would be like, is a misapplication of intellect and imagination. Also, looking the other way, from the inside out, conventional language will always fail to convey what's meant by the distinction between pain, and suffering. So, if you still have self-referential movements of mind that are correlated to pain, how can you ever really be sure that these would end with perfected sainthood? It's like Schrodinger's cat or Wigner's friend or the tree falling in the woods. Same existential question, different day.
It doesn't seem to me that intellectual investigation led Tolle away from the park bench. As I mentioned to you a few weeks ago, he actually explains it in terms of a new identity forming up: that of a spiritual speaker, writer and teacher. Was that his ego, his intellect making a mess of things, or was it THIS, THISING, using that man's body/mind as an instrument?
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 16, 2020 18:53:02 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Feb 16, 2020 18:53:02 GMT -5
L: I agree with all of that except that I'm not keen on the phrase "perfected sainthood." haha. I suspect that what's required for Ramananess is significant silence, but perhaps even something more than that. I'll let you know if I ever find out. LOL
Yes, I got what you were saying about Tolle, but the guy was an intellectual, and at some point mind obviously got cranked up more than when he was on the park bench--at least enough to write his book, and he also mentions reading spiritual literature and hearing a presentation by a Zen Master. In short, there may be more to the story than we know.
Mooji seems like one of the clearest characters out there, and when I watch Mooji videos, he seems to be about as deep as anything I can recognize. Of course, that may not be saying much.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 16, 2020 19:12:12 GMT -5
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 16, 2020 19:12:12 GMT -5
L: I agree with all of that except that I'm not keen on the phrase "perfected sainthood." haha. I suspect that what's required for Ramananess is significant silence, but perhaps even something more than that. I'll let you know if I ever find out. LOL Yes, I got what you were saying about Tolle, but the guy was an intellectual, and at some point mind obviously got cranked up more than when he was on the park bench--at least enough to write his book, and he also mentions reading spiritual literature and hearing a presentation by a Zen Master. In short, there may be more to the story than we know. Mooji seems like one of the clearest characters out there, and when I watch Mooji videos, he seems to be about as deep as anything I can recognize. Of course, that may not be saying much. I agree about Mooji. I’m a bit more partial to Adyashanti. Reminds be of a cross between a California surfer boy and Buddha. But then again he is the only teacher I’ve spent any time with up close and personal. His depth of compassion and understanding for the unconsciousness of others is unequaled imho.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 16, 2020 22:13:46 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2020 22:13:46 GMT -5
L: I agree with all of that except that I'm not keen on the phrase "perfected sainthood." haha. I suspect that what's required for Ramananess is significant silence, but perhaps even something more than that. I'll let you know if I ever find out. LOL Yes, I got what you were saying about Tolle, but the guy was an intellectual, and at some point mind obviously got cranked up more than when he was on the park bench--at least enough to write his book, and he also mentions reading spiritual literature and hearing a presentation by a Zen Master. In short, there may be more to the story than we know. Mooji seems like one of the clearest characters out there, and when I watch Mooji videos, he seems to be about as deep as anything I can recognize. Of course, that may not be saying much. heh heh .. fwiw, to the extent I can recognize that depth I perceive it in many of the people who've expressed themselves on the forum, all showing different facets of the diamond. What I came to understand years ago is that much of the writing is inherently poetic, even if it's not meant to be so. Much of your writing, especially about the CC experiences/realizations and insights, are a steep drop off for this particular internet guy. Another thing I've found incredibly deep over time is the Christian parable of the coin, "render unto Caesar". I think the Western interpretation of the idea of karma is a travesty, and that it's best left at the notion that, in relative, and time-bound terms, noone chooses their DNA nor the time, place or other circumstances of their birth or the conditions into which they are born. We're only meant to transcend the pollutants in the air, not the action of the breath.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 17, 2020 0:30:26 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Feb 17, 2020 0:30:26 GMT -5
This sounds all rather complicated the way Ramana presented it. Seems to me 'samadhi' can refer to both a state of mind and a state of being. If it refers to a psychological state of mind, then this is still the personal perspective (there's still a sense of self present) and then samadhi is basically synonymous with what MC (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi) calls 'flow' or what JD (Joe Dispenza) calls 'coherence' or what A-H call 'alignment'. If it refers to a state of being, then this the impersonal perspective, i.e. there's no sense of self present anymore. MC refers to this as 'deep flow', A-H call it 'true alignment' and UG called this 'the natural state'. So, following the great tradition of distinguishing between truth and truthin', I'm going to suggest to make a similar distinction between flow and flowtin' from now on. In that case, what Ramana is referring to is "deep flow" because he makes it clear that it's totally impersonal. Like UG he also called it "the natural state." Ramana distinguished between sahaja samadhi (flow) and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi (deep flow), and the latter could only be attained by "killing the mind," which he considered synonymous with eradication of ego. The effortful/effortless distinction does make a lot of sense to me. If samadhi refers to a state of mind, then it is dependent on your focus, where you put your attention. And then, by definition, it has to be effortful. If samadhi refers to a state of being instead, then this cannot be dependent on your focus/attention. So then, by definition, it has to be effortless.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 17, 2020 12:24:32 GMT -5
Post by lopezcabellero on Feb 17, 2020 12:24:32 GMT -5
In that case, what Ramana is referring to is "deep flow" because he makes it clear that it's totally impersonal. Like UG he also called it "the natural state." Ramana distinguished between sahaja samadhi (flow) and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi (deep flow), and the latter could only be attained by "killing the mind," which he considered synonymous with eradication of ego. The effortful/effortless distinction does make a lot of sense to me. If samadhi refers to a state of mind, then it is dependent on your focus, where you put your attention. And then, by definition, it has to be effortful. If samadhi refers to a state of being instead, then this cannot be dependent on your focus/attention. So then, by definition, it has to be effortless. And if that’s the case, the latter, or effortless samadhi, depends on ones emotional consciousness, or to the degree to which one is in the presence of emotions that one is unaware of and/or avoiding. Whether you can use effort to get more conscious depends on how you want to approach the subject. Some witnessing is implicit, as you can only see previously unseen stuff by opening the eye that observes mind. However, as addictive behaviors often inhibit this seeing, getting an understanding of that behavior, how fear ties in, and how emotion can drive behavior, can more fully connect ones consciousness with ones mind. Realizing one is nothing witnessed won’t prevent the need for witnessing some processing on the form level to align more intelligently the condition of the universe with ones personal conditioning. Gaining consciousness or releasing pain is effortless. Understanding how pain is avoided or how addiction works or what dysfunctional codependency is involves use of the intellect to a degree at first, but must be followed by or coupled to a passion to feel ones emotions or effortless release won’t happen. And if one is in a mind state where emotions remain beyond reach, then one is firmly in the grips of mind identification, and the realization hasn’t purified the person, but has been co opted by the mind to perpetuate self denial. That’s when maybe a little effort might be called for.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 17, 2020 12:54:58 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Feb 17, 2020 12:54:58 GMT -5
In that case, what Ramana is referring to is "deep flow" because he makes it clear that it's totally impersonal. Like UG he also called it "the natural state." Ramana distinguished between sahaja samadhi (flow) and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi (deep flow), and the latter could only be attained by "killing the mind," which he considered synonymous with eradication of ego. The effortful/effortless distinction does make a lot of sense to me. If samadhi refers to a state of mind, then it is dependent on your focus, where you put your attention. And then, by definition, it has to be effortful. If samadhi refers to a state of being instead, then this cannot be dependent on your focus/attention. So then, by definition, it has to be effortless. Well, NS is seemingly effortful if it's believed that a "me" is the one that needs to get into that state. It's not effortful if the "me" has been seen through as an illusion. In a deeper sense, no action is ever effortful because there is no entity capable of making an effort, and the idea of effort is just another idea that obscures the truth of "what is." Even deeper is the pointer, "Nothing ever happens" because it takes two to tango and there isn't. Here's are some interesting quotes from Ramana: The one point where all religions meet is the realization, in no mystical sense, but in the most worldly and everyday sense, the fact that God is everything and everything is God.......One has to cease calling things "things" and to call them God; and instead of thinking them to be things, to know them to be God; instead of imagining existence to be the only thing possible, to realize that existence is only the creation of the mind...and that non-existence is a necessity if you are going to postulate existence. The knowledge of things only shows the existence of an organ to cognize..... God is infinite, and therefore existence and non-existence are merely component parts. Not that I wish to say God is made up of parts. It is hard to be comprehensible when talking of God....true knowledge comes from within and not from without. And true knowledge is not 'knowing' but 'seeing.' The following is a rather humorous exchange between Ramana and a Dr. H: Dr. H: ...Does there exist such a thing as a personal God. R: Yes. Dr. H: (asking with astonishment) What? With eyes, nose, ears, etc? R: Yes, if you have them why should not God also have them? Dr. H: When I read in the Puranas that God has these organs, I laugh. R: Why don't you laugh at yourself for having them?
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 18, 2020 6:09:07 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Feb 18, 2020 6:09:07 GMT -5
The effortful/effortless distinction does make a lot of sense to me. If samadhi refers to a state of mind, then it is dependent on your focus, where you put your attention. And then, by definition, it has to be effortful. If samadhi refers to a state of being instead, then this cannot be dependent on your focus/attention. So then, by definition, it has to be effortless. Well, NS is seemingly effortful if it's believed that a "me" is the one that needs to get into that state. It's not effortful if the "me" has been seen through as an illusion. In a deeper sense, no action is ever effortful because there is no entity capable of making an effort, and the idea of effort is just another idea that obscures the truth of "what is." Even deeper is the pointer, "Nothing ever happens" because it takes two to tango and there isn't. Here's are some interesting quotes from Ramana: The one point where all religions meet is the realization, in no mystical sense, but in the most worldly and everyday sense, the fact that God is everything and everything is God.......One has to cease calling things "things" and to call them God; and instead of thinking them to be things, to know them to be God; instead of imagining existence to be the only thing possible, to realize that existence is only the creation of the mind...and that non-existence is a necessity if you are going to postulate existence. The knowledge of things only shows the existence of an organ to cognize..... God is infinite, and therefore existence and non-existence are merely component parts. Not that I wish to say God is made up of parts. It is hard to be comprehensible when talking of God....true knowledge comes from within and not from without. And true knowledge is not 'knowing' but 'seeing.' The following is a rather humorous exchange between Ramana and a Dr. H: Dr. H: ...Does there exist such a thing as a personal God. R: Yes. Dr. H: (asking with astonishment) What? With eyes, nose, ears, etc? R: Yes, if you have them why should not God also have them? Dr. H: When I read in the Puranas that God has these organs, I laugh. R: Why don't you laugh at yourself for having them? I like all of these quotes a lot. Especially the first one about 'thingness'. That's basically what we've been talking about, isn't it? I didn't know Ramana was so explicit on that. The last quote certainly has a touch of Zen! From what book are you quoting? Recently some puzzle pieces have been coming together for me re: Ramana thanks to your posts. Really cool. It's all so simple and clear if you just ditch the Sanskrit and put it into plain English.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 18, 2020 7:04:57 GMT -5
Well, NS is seemingly effortful if it's believed that a "me" is the one that needs to get into that state. It's not effortful if the "me" has been seen through as an illusion. In a deeper sense, no action is ever effortful because there is no entity capable of making an effort, and the idea of effort is just another idea that obscures the truth of "what is." Even deeper is the pointer, "Nothing ever happens" because it takes two to tango and there isn't. Here's are some interesting quotes from Ramana: The one point where all religions meet is the realization, in no mystical sense, but in the most worldly and everyday sense, the fact that God is everything and everything is God.......One has to cease calling things "things" and to call them God; and instead of thinking them to be things, to know them to be God; instead of imagining existence to be the only thing possible, to realize that existence is only the creation of the mind...and that non-existence is a necessity if you are going to postulate existence. The knowledge of things only shows the existence of an organ to cognize..... God is infinite, and therefore existence and non-existence are merely component parts. Not that I wish to say God is made up of parts. It is hard to be comprehensible when talking of God....true knowledge comes from within and not from without. And true knowledge is not 'knowing' but 'seeing.' The following is a rather humorous exchange between Ramana and a Dr. H: Dr. H: ...Does there exist such a thing as a personal God. R: Yes. Dr. H: (asking with astonishment) What? With eyes, nose, ears, etc? R: Yes, if you have them why should not God also have them? Dr. H: When I read in the Puranas that God has these organs, I laugh. R: Why don't you laugh at yourself for having them? I like all of these quotes a lot. Especially the first one about 'thingness'. That's basically what we've been talking about, isn't it? I didn't know Ramana was so explicit on that. The last quote certainly has a touch of Zen! From what book are you quoting? Recently some puzzle pieces have been coming together for me re: Ramana thanks to your posts. Really cool. It's all so simple and clear if you just ditch the Sanskrit and put it into plain English. I have about ten or twelve books about Ramana, but the one I've been reading lately is, "A Practical Guide to Know Yourself, Conversations with Sri Ramana Maharshi,": compiled and edited by A.R. Natarajan. Natarajan has about 20 books out there, but although I haven't read any of the other ones, I've ordered two of them. The book I've been reading is one of the clearest translations of Ramana's talks with people, and I attribute that to Natarajan. Here are some other interesting quotes from the book: Question: What is the difference between the ego and the Self? R: That which comes and goes, rises and sets, is born and dies is the ego. That which always abides, never changes and is devoid of qualities is the Self. Q: I suppose one has to sublimate the ego-self into the true Self. R: The ego-self does not exist at all. Q: Then why does it give so much trouble? R: To whom is the trouble? The trouble also is imagined. Q: But how did the ego arise? R: Ego is non-existent, otherwise you would be two instead of one--you the ego and you the Self. You are a single indivisible whole. Enquire into yourself and the ego and ignorance will disappear. The other quotes are longer and I'll post them later.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 18, 2020 10:21:01 GMT -5
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 18, 2020 10:21:01 GMT -5
I like all of these quotes a lot. Especially the first one about 'thingness'. That's basically what we've been talking about, isn't it? I didn't know Ramana was so explicit on that. The last quote certainly has a touch of Zen! From what book are you quoting? Recently some puzzle pieces have been coming together for me re: Ramana thanks to your posts. Really cool. It's all so simple and clear if you just ditch the Sanskrit and put it into plain English. I have about ten or twelve books about Ramana, but the one I've been reading lately is, "A Practical Guide to Know Yourself, Conversations with Sri Ramana Maharshi,": compiled and edited by A.R. Natarajan. Natarajan has about 20 books out there, but although I haven't read any of the other ones, I've ordered two of them. The book I've been reading is one of the clearest translations of Ramana's talks with people, and I attribute that to Natarajan. Here are some other interesting quotes from the book: Question: What is the difference between the ego and the Self? R: That which comes and goes, rises and sets, is born and dies is the ego. That which always abides, never changes and is devoid of qualities is the Self. Q: I suppose one has to sublimate the ego-self into the true Self. R: The ego-self does not exist at all. Q: Then why does it give so much trouble? R: To whom is the trouble? The trouble also is imagined. Q: But how did the ego arise? R: Ego is non-existent, otherwise you would be two instead of one--you the ego and you the Self. You are a single indivisible whole. Enquire into yourself and the ego and ignorance will disappear. The other quotes are longer and I'll post them later. Just fyi, none of these are actually translated by Natarajan. They're all from Guru Ramana by S.S. Cohen.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 18, 2020 16:52:49 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Feb 18, 2020 16:52:49 GMT -5
I have about ten or twelve books about Ramana, but the one I've been reading lately is, "A Practical Guide to Know Yourself, Conversations with Sri Ramana Maharshi,": compiled and edited by A.R. Natarajan. Natarajan has about 20 books out there, but although I haven't read any of the other ones, I've ordered two of them. The book I've been reading is one of the clearest translations of Ramana's talks with people, and I attribute that to Natarajan. Here are some other interesting quotes from the book: Question: What is the difference between the ego and the Self? R: That which comes and goes, rises and sets, is born and dies is the ego. That which always abides, never changes and is devoid of qualities is the Self. Q: I suppose one has to sublimate the ego-self into the true Self. R: The ego-self does not exist at all. Q: Then why does it give so much trouble? R: To whom is the trouble? The trouble also is imagined. Q: But how did the ego arise? R: Ego is non-existent, otherwise you would be two instead of one--you the ego and you the Self. You are a single indivisible whole. Enquire into yourself and the ego and ignorance will disappear. The other quotes are longer and I'll post them later. Just fyi, none of these are actually translated by Natarajan. They're all from Guru Ramana by S.S. Cohen. Thanks. In that case I'll attribute credit to S.S. Cohen. Oddly enough, I think I have a book by Cohen that doesn't seem nearly as clear as this one, but I'll have to go check to make sure.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 19, 2020 11:37:32 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Feb 19, 2020 11:37:32 GMT -5
And if that’s the case, the latter, or effortless samadhi, depends on ones emotional consciousness, or to the degree to which one is in the presence of emotions that one is unaware of and/or avoiding. This has nothing to do with spiritual work or psychology. The effortless samadhi, or deep flow, doesn't depend on anything. What this term refers to is the impersonal perspective. Impersonal means prior to mind. And prior to mind also means prior to emotions. You see, the only tool you've ever got is your focus, your attention. Wherever you put your attention, your mind will follow and your thoughts will indicate that on an intellectual level, your emotions will indicate that on a visceral level. Actually, effort you can basically translate as directing focus/attention. And as already mentioned, deep samadhi doesn't depend on your focus/attention. Which means, if directing your focus/attention is the only tool at your disposal and deep samadhi doesn't depend on what you do with your focus/attention, then all your efforts to get 'there' must be doomed from the get-go. There's no way you can bring about this shift from the personal to the impersonal perspective. That's why we call it acausal. There's nothing you can do to get 'there'. You cannot get there by doing, and you cannot get there by not doing. In fact, there is no getting 'there' at all. Because 'there' is the natural state. Which is uncaused. And it is not there, it is HERE. It just is. NOW. HERE and NOW.
|
|
|
Samadhi
Feb 20, 2020 11:04:13 GMT -5
Post by lopezcabellero on Feb 20, 2020 11:04:13 GMT -5
And if that’s the case, the latter, or effortless samadhi, depends on ones emotional consciousness, or to the degree to which one is in the presence of emotions that one is unaware of and/or avoiding. This has nothing to do with spiritual work or psychology. The effortless samadhi, or deep flow, doesn't depend on anything. What this term refers to is the impersonal perspective. Impersonal means prior to mind. And prior to mind also means prior to emotions. You see, the only tool you've ever got is your focus, your attention. Wherever you put your attention, your mind will follow and your thoughts will indicate that on an intellectual level, your emotions will indicate that on a visceral level. Actually, effort you can basically translate as directing focus/attention. And as already mentioned, deep samadhi doesn't depend on your focus/attention. Which means, if directing your focus/attention is the only tool at your disposal and deep samadhi doesn't depend on what you do with your focus/attention, then all your efforts to get 'there' must be doomed from the get-go. There's no way you can bring about this shift from the personal to the impersonal perspective. That's why we call it acausal.. Deep flow, obviously is referring to something experiential, as opposed to that which transcends experience, transcends flow and non flow. There is nothing you can do to be that which transcends flow and non flow, but I wouldn’t call realizing that samadhi. You would? If a highly unconscious person can end up in deep samadhi by accident, then samadhi has very little to do with true alignment as I would define the term. So on the one hand you were saying samadhi is about the alignment, which has everything to do with your state of consciousness, and now you seemingly are saying that samadhi is impersonal, yet nonetheless experiential. That begs the question, what transcends the experience? Awareness is impersonal, and attention lands spontaneously on thought steam or emotions or on perception absent thoughts or emotion. The issue with believing shifting attention away from thoughts and emotions leads to oneness realization is that it doesn’t. It leads to an experience with some absences, which is still personal. I never meant to imply there is something you can do to be more conscious, which is crucial to true alignment. Consciousness effortlessly notices the mind functioning unconsciously, which makes the mind more conscious. This is why noticing is acausal. You seem to be mixing the idea of realizing you are the noticer as Acausal and also saying entering the natural state as acausal. If the unconscious mind fails to allow consciousness to notice its repressed garbage, then all talk of samadhi or deep flow or anything else is moot, because these words have nothing to do with true alignment. As such, entering the natural state is all about noticing and processing, and I happen to agree that this is ultimately acuausal, meaning, not caused by a person that never existed in Its own right.
|
|