|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 18:22:28 GMT -5
Well, back to nothing, I would say, as I define ignorance as false knowledge. One is not born in ignorance, but rather innocence. To nothing is probably more accurate. Though in terms of Niz and the knowing I am, it could be unconscious knowing, to conscious knowing, then back to unconscious knowing. What is absent in the return are the fears and attachments and the misunderstanding. Yeah, I can agree with that in the sense in which ZD talks about the body knowing what to do, which to me is just unconscious knowing. Though as you imply, in a more purified state than before. There really is an irony there in that unconsciousness can be the mode of functioning in the natural state, or it can be a major source of suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 18:31:42 GMT -5
Yes but once you are attentive to it, it doesn't require reflective thinking to know it. It just is. Yes, and is there any suffering in that place? Any lack? Any efforting? Any agenda? All of that can be there, or none of it, and you still know you exist. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 18:45:08 GMT -5
Oh, I think I get it. You're saying the Absolute doesn't observe but something else does (the person)? There are things that you 'know' the way the absolute knows, because you ARE the absolute. You already non-conceptually 'know' you exist, and you 'know' what you are, you just don't realize it, which is the whole game here. You don't have to learn something you don't already know. That's why realization seems simple and obvious after the fact. Yes, when you say non conceptually know, I say unconsciously know, so I agree the sense of I am is not learned or conditioned, it is prior to that. I see ths unconscious knowing of I am as very very similar to the way that the absolute knows I am, but it is not quite the same, because although I agree that fundamentally we are the absolute, there is a filter in place in our experience. It is actually the filter of experience itself, because with experience comes attention. The absolute does not have that filter. So for us, the I am is sensed instantly I.e as soon as attention moves, but for the absolute it is even 'faster' because attention is not required. So Niz is telling the person to focus on I am, which leads to stabilization in I am, and then hopefully a kind of dissolution of attachment to I am, which results in merger between self and Self. Okay |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 18:54:43 GMT -5
A thought about the sense of I am, requires a movement. The sense is non-conceptual. As I said, the sense of existence is the foundation upon which a thought is built. I don't know if that makes the sense a part of the experience or not. I would say unconscious motivations, fears, etc are very much a part of our experience, so I don't think one has to consciously reflect. Yes, the sense itself is non conceptual, and is the foundation of all other senses (or thoughts) but sensing that sense requires the movement of attention because it is non conceptual. So what you are calling realization comes with a movement.Would you call it a movement of mind? Cuz that's what I understand a movement to be. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 18:59:26 GMT -5
I'm trying to work out why you think it's significant in some way that there is no agenda i n the thoughtless void of undifferentiated awareness, because the agenda arises in the personal. So why is this of interest? I'm not sure what the point is. There can be an agenda for both the ignorant and enlightened, just as they both have arms and legs. What of it? I asked if there was an agenda in that place. Not as an intellectual looking and imagining what it is like to be at that place. But to go there, be there, and discover the truth for ones self. If I wanted an intellectual discussion I would be quite willing to discuss that consciousness does in fact have an agenda, but that is not what I am getting at. My point and interest is in wanting to converse with someone who is at that place, who is abiding there, not someone who thinks and imagines they are. Who here on the forum will say something to me from that place? How would you recognize it? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 19:08:08 GMT -5
No one can or ever will in the entire history of mankind. If you believe that thought, it cannot not be your experience. I assume he thinks you're talking about Samadhi. From what I understand, there isn't a lot of chit chat going on in that 'place'.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 19:11:30 GMT -5
A thought about the sense of I am, requires a movement. The sense is non-conceptual. As I said, the sense of existence is the foundation upon which a thought is built. I don't know if that makes the sense a part of the experience or not. I would say unconscious motivations, fears, etc are very much a part of our experience, so I don't think one has to consciously reflect. 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. That's not my sense of how the term is used. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 2, 2017 20:38:52 GMT -5
So you're not willing to share what book that quote was from? I think it was Consciousness and the Absolute. Correct. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 2, 2017 21:13:57 GMT -5
I think it was Consciousness and the Absolute. Correct. That's precisely my understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 21:44:38 GMT -5
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? I had the same question but I was afraid of starting another Samadhi-rama hootnany. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 21:58:12 GMT -5
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? Being knows it's Being without I am. You are Being, not I am. To think you are I am is a mistake of misidentification. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 22:09:55 GMT -5
Don't you know that you are, in Being? Being knows it's Being without I am. You are Being, not I am. To think you are I am is a mistake of misidentification. 'I am' isn't about identification. It's about existence. (Being?) Being knows it IS, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 22:16:36 GMT -5
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. I use the term self referral because awareness knows itself. It only refers to itself. You say there is only awareness in samadhi, but no sense of existence. Surely they are the same thing. You don't need I am for the sense of existence. It's just that when we seek the I am sense we have both awareness and I (as the root of ego and personal identity) mixed together. If you tasted sugar water you would say the water is sweet, but it's only the sugar that is sweet, but they're mixed together like awareness and ego/I am. We taste both together. Niz is asking you to scrutinize the water so that we can discriminate between sugar and water and know what the sweetness really is and that it's not dependent on the water. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 22:19:45 GMT -5
Being knows it's Being without I am. You are Being, not I am. To think you are I am is a mistake of misidentification. 'I am' isn't about identification. It's about existence. (Being?) Being knows it IS, right? Yes Being knows itself but veils itself from itself and identifies with objects. Falling into the dream. That can be reverse engineered. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 3, 2017 0:09:21 GMT -5
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. I use the term self referral because awareness knows itself. It only refers to itself. You say there is only awareness in samadhi, but no sense of existence. Surely they are the same thing. You don't need I am for the sense of existence. It's just that when we seek the I am sense we have both awareness and I (as the root of ego and personal identity) mixed together. If you tasted sugar water you would say the water is sweet, but it's only the sugar that is sweet, but they're mixed together like awareness and ego/I am. We taste both together. Niz is asking you to scrutinize the water so that we can discriminate between sugar and water and know what the sweetness really is and that it's not dependent on the water. Something else Niz is asking is that you understand that the 'I am' is the sense of existence. |
|
