Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 14:19:35 GMT -5
Won't...as in you don't want to. There isn't anything there for Mr Mind. Mr. Mind can want even that, though. Mind can pretend that it wants to. That's what most of us are doing. Pretending that we aren't what we are. Playing hide and seek. Looking for consciousness where it can't be found. That's why we can wake up to that place where we are looking from at any time. We really just don't want to. As Satch has said, he is quite happy with his person. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 2, 2017 14:30:42 GMT -5
Expressing this as a sense associates it with content. It's not only non-conceptual, but completely sideways to content. Perhaps it would be useful to even assassinate "prior-to", as it seems that can suggest something to mind that just isn't the case. No, you're associating it with content. It doesn't mean he does just because he uses the word sense. If not sense then what? And we have to dump prior to as well? Let's just stop talking in case we have to use a word! No, that's simply not the case. "I am" signifies to me what is pointed to by "sense of being". I understand andy's position to be that the "sense of being" implies movement, and I understand both you and ZD to have associated it with self-reference/"ego". In either case -- movement of mind or the specific movement of mind of self-reference -- there's content involved. I think I understand why those associations get made, and yes, it seems to me that it's based on the meaning of the word "sense". Prior-to doesn't refer to time, it uses a temporal idea to suggest a step back from the temporal to point to timelessness. But still, to some, it suggests a temporal sequence. This is why I've said that there is an immediacy to "self-evidence" that is transcendent of self-reference. Those are two different contextual uses of the word "self". |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 14:42:12 GMT -5
No, you're associating it with content. It doesn't mean he does just because he uses the word sense. If not sense then what? And we have to dump prior to as well? Let's just stop talking in case we have to use a word! No, that's simply not the case. "I am" signifies to me what is pointed to by "sense of being". I understand andy's position to be that the "sense of being" implies movement, and I understand both you and ZD to have associated it with self-reference/"ego". In either case -- movement of mind or the specific movement of mind of self-reference -- there's content involved. I think I understand why those associations get made, and yes, it seems to me that it's based on the meaning of the word "sense". Prior-to doesn't refer to time, it uses a temporal idea to suggest a step back from the temporal to point to timelessness. But still, to some, it suggests a temporal sequence. This is why I've said that there is an immediacy to "self-evidence" that is transcendent of self-reference. Those are two different contextual uses of the word "self". In case it isn't clear, I would say the sense of being is constant (though I am also fine with tenka's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'realization' and I am fine with Niz's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'samadhi'). I am saying that the sensing OF that sense of being requires a movement of attention. Because that sense of being is constant, we can say it is 'self-evident'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 14:47:02 GMT -5
No, that's simply not the case. "I am" signifies to me what is pointed to by "sense of being". I understand andy's position to be that the "sense of being" implies movement, and I understand both you and ZD to have associated it with self-reference/"ego". In either case -- movement of mind or the specific movement of mind of self-reference -- there's content involved. I think I understand why those associations get made, and yes, it seems to me that it's based on the meaning of the word "sense". Prior-to doesn't refer to time, it uses a temporal idea to suggest a step back from the temporal to point to timelessness. But still, to some, it suggests a temporal sequence. This is why I've said that there is an immediacy to "self-evidence" that is transcendent of self-reference. Those are two different contextual uses of the word "self". In case it isn't clear, I would say the sense of being is constant (though I am also fine with tenka's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'realization' and I am fine with Niz's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'samadhi'). I am saying that the sensing OF that sense of being requires a movement of attention. I agree with the movement as a facilitation of locating that sense. But Being isn't gone in samadhi. There is only Being in samadhi but no I am. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 14:54:15 GMT -5
In case it isn't clear, I would say the sense of being is constant (though I am also fine with tenka's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'realization' and I am fine with Niz's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'samadhi'). I am saying that the sensing OF that sense of being requires a movement of attention. I agree with the movement as a facilitation of locating that sense. But Being isn't gone in samadhi. There is only Being in samadhi but no I am. Yes that's basically the same as Niz but slightly different words. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 2, 2017 15:12:41 GMT -5
No, that's simply not the case. "I am" signifies to me what is pointed to by "sense of being". I understand andy's position to be that the "sense of being" implies movement, and I understand both you and ZD to have associated it with self-reference/"ego". In either case -- movement of mind or the specific movement of mind of self-reference -- there's content involved. I think I understand why those associations get made, and yes, it seems to me that it's based on the meaning of the word "sense". Prior-to doesn't refer to time, it uses a temporal idea to suggest a step back from the temporal to point to timelessness. But still, to some, it suggests a temporal sequence. This is why I've said that there is an immediacy to "self-evidence" that is transcendent of self-reference. Those are two different contextual uses of the word "self". In case it isn't clear, I would say the sense of being is constant (though I am also fine with tenka's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'realization' and I am fine with Niz's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'samadhi'). I am saying that the sensing OF that sense of being requires a movement of attention. Because that sense of being is constant, we can say it is 'self-evident'. strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Which specific Niz quote are you referring to? "Constant" infers continuity over time. The immediacy of self-evidence is timeless. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 15:29:23 GMT -5
In case it isn't clear, I would say the sense of being is constant (though I am also fine with tenka's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'realization' and I am fine with Niz's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'samadhi'). I am saying that the sensing OF that sense of being requires a movement of attention. Because that sense of being is constant, we can say it is 'self-evident'. strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Which specific Niz quote are you referring to? "Constant" infers continuity over time. The immediacy of self-evidence is timeless. I see it as a significant difference. I'm saying the sense of being is present whether attention moves to it or not. It underlies all other senses. But it is only when attention moves to it, that the sense of being is actually sensed. Not wholly dissimilar to the breath, though the breath is phenomena. We could say the breath is always there, but the actual sensing of the breath comes and goes. Which is why Niz says to focus on the I am, or bring attention to it. The samadhi quote is from a couple of pages back. Oh hang on, I changed my mind about posting that one, but I may still have it handy. Back in a minute. Okay, yeah I think I did post it...''The I am is absent only in the state of samadhi, when the self merges in the Self.'' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 15:58:21 GMT -5
In case it isn't clear, I would say the sense of being is constant (though I am also fine with tenka's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'realization' and I am fine with Niz's suggestion that it is gone in what he calls 'samadhi'). I am saying that the sensing OF that sense of being requires a movement of attention. I agree with the movement as a facilitation of locating that sense. But Being isn't gone in samadhi. There is only Being in samadhi but no I am.Don't you know that you are, in Being? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 2, 2017 16:03:55 GMT -5
This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Which specific Niz quote are you referring to? "Constant" infers continuity over time. The immediacy of self-evidence is timeless. I see it as a significant difference. I'm saying the sense of being is present whether attention moves to it or not. It underlies all other senses. But it is only when attention moves to it, that the sense of being is actually sensed. Not wholly dissimilar to the breath, though the breath is phenomena. We could say the breath is always there, but the actual sensing of the breath comes and goes. Which is why Niz says to focus on the I am, or bring attention to it. The samadhi quote is from a couple of pages back. Oh hang on, I changed my mind about posting that one, but I may still have it handy. Back in a minute. Ok so you mean the first quote here then? What I meant is, what is the source of the quote? What's the book and preferably, the chapter where it's printed? The reason I ask is that Niz used "I am" contextually, and the text surrounding it can help illuminate that context. In the context he's speaking there, and what you're referring to as coming and going in your description, is a phenomenal sense of association and identification with experience. The "constancy" in that instance is a literal, biological meaning associated with sensory perception. It's the fact of experiencing reflected in the mental dynamic of self-reference. His other contextual use of "I am" is in terms of a "pure awareness" that is outside of time, and to which no idea of continuity would apply, despite the conceptual implications of the notion that it is "prior-to" consciousness. Like so: Q: There are very interesting books written by apparently very competent people, in which the illusoriness of the world is denied (though not its transitoriness). According to them, there exists a hierarchy of beings, from the lowest to the highest; on each level the complexity of the organism enables and reflects the depth, breadth and intensity of consciousness, without any visible or knowable culmination. One law supreme rules throughout: evolution of forms for the growth and enrichment of consciousness and manifestation of its infinite potentialities. Niz: This may or may not be so. Even if it is, it is only so from the mind’s point of view, but In fact the entire universe (mahadakash) exists only in consciousness (chidakash), while I have my stand in the Absolute (paramakash). In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears and disappears. All there is is me, all there is is mine. Before all beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the ‘I am’, that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable without me. Whatever happens, I must be there to witness it. (from dialog #7 of "I AM THAT": The Mind) |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 2, 2017 16:18:30 GMT -5
Satch: You've experienced NS. Have you ever experienced any sense of existence in that state apart from pure awareness, or do you equate pure awareness with what we generally mean by "a sense of existence?" What I call "the I am" does not seem to be present in deep samadhi. ZM Sekida writes: "We can arbitrarily distinguish a number of levels of consciousness: (a) The uppermost, where thoughts and ideas come and go (b) A level that understands but does not form ideas (c) A level that is only aware (d) A level that simply reflects interior and exterior objects as a mirror does. Even in this stratum, traces of the reflecting action of consciousness will occasionally appear (e) The deepest level, where not even the faintest reflecting action of consciousness penetrates. In Absolute Samadhi (NS)....the habitual way of consciousness is swept away. Both the reflecting and reflected vanish: a pitch dark world. This condition is called 'no thought samadhi,' which is the same as Absolute Samadhi. It is the stage at which we can say, 'No ox, No man.'" (referring to the ten ox-herding pictures) What are your thoughts about this? It doesn't really matter to me one way of the other, but I'm just curious. It would be (e). This is prior to ego/I am. There is only self referral awareness with no object such as a thought or something to perceive. It knows itself and doesn't need to revert to reflective thinking or memory to know it after the event. It knows itself in the present moment. There is no I am in samadhi. I can absorb myself in that at any time and instantaneously if I wish. But it doesn't disappear when a thought arises. Then awareness and object coexist simultaneously. If an object comes into awareness very strongly or unexpectedly, it can momentarily have more prominance than awareness. But experience is always drawn back to silence without leaving an imprint on the mind. It's like stretching a rubber band and letting it go. Duality always snaps back to silent nondual awareness as the default relaxed state which is also bliss. Basically I agree with that although I wouldn't use the term "self referral awareness" because it might give the wrong impression--that awareness is somehow known referentially. In deep Samadhi awareness somehow knows itself directly, internally, and non-conceptually without reference to anything. There's definitely no sense of existence in deep Samadhi, but it's admittedly hard to say anything meaningful about that state because it is totally non-dual and empty of everything other than awareness. Based on what you've written, you have more experience with deep thought-free Samadhi than I do, but would you agree with my description of entering that state as one in which the process of unification can be felt (as if the body is solidifying into something like a block of ice) up to a certain point (the event horizon), after which everything disappears? At the event horizon it feels to me as if the body/mind is then pulled by something like an unknown gravitational force into that state, and it always feels like an act of grace by some unknowable agent. Like you, I think that there's a carryover effect from NS into everyday life. To this body/mind it's a bit like hitting the "clear" button on a calculator, where everything goes to zero. Whether it actually loosens up conditioning or habitual thought patterns I don't know, but many people report realizations and cosmic consciousness experiences following periods of deep Samadhi. It may only be a shortcut to the non-dual, similar to CC experiences, because it doesn't seem to be a requirement for SR. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 16:20:06 GMT -5
I see it as a significant difference. I'm saying the sense of being is present whether attention moves to it or not. It underlies all other senses. But it is only when attention moves to it, that the sense of being is actually sensed. Not wholly dissimilar to the breath, though the breath is phenomena. We could say the breath is always there, but the actual sensing of the breath comes and goes. Which is why Niz says to focus on the I am, or bring attention to it. The samadhi quote is from a couple of pages back. Oh hang on, I changed my mind about posting that one, but I may still have it handy. Back in a minute. Ok so you mean the first quote here then? What I meant is, what is the source of the quote? What's the book and preferably, the chapter where it's printed? The reason I ask is that Niz used "I am" contextually, and the text surrounding it can help illuminate that context. In the context he's speaking there, and what you're referring to as coming and going in your description, is a phenomenal sense of association and identification with experience. The "constancy" in that instance is a literal, biological meaning associated with sensory perception. It's the fact of experiencing reflected in the mental dynamic of self-reference. His other contextual use of "I am" is in terms of a pure awareness that is outside of time, and to which no idea of continuity would apply, despite the conceptual implications of the notion that it is "prior-to" consciousness. Like so: Q: There are very interesting books written by apparently very competent people, in which the illusoriness of the world is denied (though not its transitoriness). According to them, there exists a hierarchy of beings, from the lowest to the highest; on each level the complexity of the organism enables and reflects the depth, breadth and intensity of consciousness, without any visible or knowable culmination. One law supreme rules throughout: evolution of forms for the growth and enrichment of consciousness and manifestation of its infinite potentialities. Niz: This may or may not be so. Even if it is, it is only so from the mind’s point of view, but In fact the entire universe (mahadakash) exists only in consciousness (chidakash), while I have my stand in the Absolute (paramakash). In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears and disappears. All there is is me, all there is is mine. Before all beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the ‘I am’, that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable without me. Whatever happens, I must be there to witness it. (from dialog #7 of "I AM THAT": The Mind) Yeah, it seems to me that his second context leant more to his earlier and best known work, and i have nonissue with it at all, though I resonate more with the first context use because I feel it really addresses the core problem and the core challenge. I think Niz really got to grips with this in his later teachings. Oh, I might not be remembering correctly but I think the quote was from Consciousness and the Absolute. I see that one as a bit of a redirection in his teaching, which became more obvious in his next ones. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 2, 2017 16:28:48 GMT -5
Ok so you mean the first quote here then? What I meant is, what is the source of the quote? What's the book and preferably, the chapter where it's printed? The reason I ask is that Niz used "I am" contextually, and the text surrounding it can help illuminate that context. In the context he's speaking there, and what you're referring to as coming and going in your description, is a phenomenal sense of association and identification with experience. The "constancy" in that instance is a literal, biological meaning associated with sensory perception. It's the fact of experiencing reflected in the mental dynamic of self-reference. His other contextual use of "I am" is in terms of a pure awareness that is outside of time, and to which no idea of continuity would apply, despite the conceptual implications of the notion that it is "prior-to" consciousness. Like so: Yeah, it seems to me that his second context leant more to his earlier and best known work, though I resonate more with the first context use because I feel it really addresses the core problem and the core challenge. I think Niz really got to grips with this in his later teachings. Oh, I might not be remembering correctly but I think the quote was from Consciousness and the Absolute. The first context is personal, temporal, phenomenal, it's the attachments to the sense of being that come and go. The second context is impersonal and he used it to directly point to "what" is realized in "SR". From what I've read of the later material generated when he was older, he doesn't abandon one context in favor of the other but instead started going to lengths to differentiate them. I agree that he adjusted his message based on what he'd learned, and I think that what he'd learned is that coaxing peeps into witnessing can get them attached to being the idea of the witness. My guess is that he started emphasizing parabrahman and letting go of the personal "I am" because peeps had become identified as the witness and were attached to a personal sense of "I am" that was uncluttered, but still left them in a duality. So you're not willing to share what book that quote was from? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 16:34:27 GMT -5
Yeah, it seems to me that his second context leant more to his earlier and best known work, though I resonate more with the first context use because I feel it really addresses the core problem and the core challenge. I think Niz really got to grips with this in his later teachings. Oh, I might not be remembering correctly but I think the quote was from Consciousness and the Absolute. The first context is personal, temporal, phenomenal, it's the attachments to the sense of being that come and go. The second context is impersonal and he used it to directly point to "what" is realized in "SR". From what I've read of the later material generated when he was older, he doesn't abandon one context in favor of the other but instead started going to lengths to differentiate them. I agree that he adjusted his message based on what he'd learned, and I think that what he'd learned is that coaxing peeps into witnessing can get them attached to being the idea of the witness. He started emphasizing parabrahman and letting go of the personal "I am" because peeps had become identified as the witness and were attached to a personal sense of "I am" that was uncluttered, but still left them in a duality. So you're not willing to share what book that quote was from? I think it was Consciousness and the Absolute. Yeah I think identification with the witness was definitely part of the redirection, but I think he also addressed more and more what is at the biological core of the movement to identify with anything and everything. Rather than paraphrase I will see if I can find a quote. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 2, 2017 16:52:35 GMT -5
I see it as a significant difference. I'm saying the sense of being is present whether attention moves to it or not. It underlies all other senses. But it is only when attention moves to it, that the sense of being is actually sensed. Not wholly dissimilar to the breath, though the breath is phenomena. We could say the breath is always there, but the actual sensing of the breath comes and goes. Which is why Niz says to focus on the I am, or bring attention to it. The samadhi quote is from a couple of pages back. Oh hang on, I changed my mind about posting that one, but I may still have it handy. Back in a minute. Ok so you mean the first quote here then? What I meant is, what is the source of the quote? What's the book and preferably, the chapter where it's printed? The reason I ask is that Niz used "I am" contextually, and the text surrounding it can help illuminate that context. In the context he's speaking there, and what you're referring to as coming and going in your description, is a phenomenal sense of association and identification with experience. The "constancy" in that instance is a literal, biological meaning associated with sensory perception. It's the fact of experiencing reflected in the mental dynamic of self-reference. His other contextual use of "I am" is in terms of a "pure awareness" that is outside of time, and to which no idea of continuity would apply, despite the conceptual implications of the notion that it is "prior-to" consciousness. Like so: Q: There are very interesting books written by apparently very competent people, in which the illusoriness of the world is denied (though not its transitoriness). According to them, there exists a hierarchy of beings, from the lowest to the highest; on each level the complexity of the organism enables and reflects the depth, breadth and intensity of consciousness, without any visible or knowable culmination. One law supreme rules throughout: evolution of forms for the growth and enrichment of consciousness and manifestation of its infinite potentialities. Niz: This may or may not be so. Even if it is, it is only so from the mind’s point of view, but In fact the entire universe (mahadakash) exists only in consciousness (chidakash), while I have my stand in the Absolute (paramakash). In pure being consciousness arises; in consciousness the world appears and disappears. All there is is me, all there is is mine. Before all beginnings, after all endings -- I am. All has its being in me, in the ‘I am’, that shines in every living being. Even not-being is unthinkable without me. Whatever happens, I must be there to witness it. (from dialog #7 of "I AM THAT": The Mind) I'll go with this last quote from Niz 100%, and it brings up an issue I've always wondered about. I recently communicated with a man who attained SR first, and later experienced the Infinite. In this body/mind's case the Infinite was experienced first, and SR came later. It almost seems as if both are required in order to make a statement like this statement by Niz. For people who experience the Infinite without SR, it usually feels as if that experience happened to a "me;" that the Infinite is "out there;" and that there was only a momentary oneness with it. SR sort of completes the circle, and makes one realize that the Infinite is always here, and that what one is is THAT. IOW, I wonder if people who attain SR, yet do not encounter the Infinite, have the same sense of awe regarding THAT as people who do? In reflecting about this issue, it occurs to me that there might be a significant distinction between TR and SR. This-realization involves penetrating the illusion of "me" and the subsequent realization that what we really are is the entire cosmos, or consciousness. The term "Self-realization" might best be reserved for people who have encountered the SELF. People have a concept for the cosmos, and they understand the concept of infinite, but people who have encountered the SELF know that there's no concept that could even remotely apply to THAT. Or, perhaps we should have two phrases for what people might realize--Self-realization or SELF-realization. In both cases the "me" is seen through, but in the latter case the unimaginable vastness and awesomeness of the SELF has been seen, and one can only bow down in abject humility before THAT. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 16:57:28 GMT -5
okay...
''Your fall started with the appearance of that beingness, I am. With the appearance of this knowingness I am, the next fall was embracing the body as I am. And then you gathered so many things onto yourself. Hold on to the state of knowing yourself as I am as the truth. All other things you have gathered to yourself are unreal.''
''You must analyze death, the meaning of this common parlance. At the time that death occurs, the vital breath quits the body, gradually leaves the body. At the same time as the vital breath, the mind and the language also go out. Simultaneously, this quality of I am, this sattva-guna, the quality of beingness, also departs or goes into oblivion. Only I, the Absolute, remains. Stay put there only, nothing happens to I, the Absolute.''
''When that witness itself, which is I am, subsides, what remains? With the witness gone, all other things have disappeared too. By the same token, upon the arising of the I am, the whole manifestation takes place; these two are not separate, they are one, I am is the witness, the entire manifest world is because of this.''
''My guru further pointed out to me the fact that the only thing you have and which you can utilize to unravel the mystery of life, is this knowledge I am. Without that there is absolutely nothing, so I got hold of it, as my guru advised me, and then I wanted to find out how the spiritual aspect of me came about without my knowledge. On my pure Absoluteness, which has no place, and no shape or form, this knowledge I am came, which also has no shape or form. Therefore, it appears; and it is only an illusion.''
** ''When the beingness appears, that love for existence is a result of the primary illusion, that maya. Once you come to know that you exist, you feel like enduring eternally, you always want to be, to exist, to survive. And so the struggle begins, all because of maya.'' **
- I see this last one as particularly significant, I feel it really addresses the core of the movement to identify. Basically, we love knowing that we exist, and so the attachment to the sense of existing is strong. Tolle is a case in point, in the moment he decided to die, he released his attachment to the sense of existing, and a shift followed.
|
|
