|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2017 23:48:30 GMT -5
prahlad.org/gallery/nisargadatta/books/Nisargadatta-The_Ultimate_Medicine.pdfFrom page 5 of Ultimate Medicine: "Because that food-body is there, and that slice of bread, the "I-am-ness" appears. Since this is dependent on the body, it is ignorance; therefore, this "I-am-ness" knowledge cannot remain permanently, it is a function of this food-body. So long as the food-body is present, this "I-am-ness" will remain. Thereafter, it will go." ... "When the food-body is dropped by the vital breath, the "I-am-ness" will set. So "I-am-ness" is not permanent either; the consciousness is not permanent." page 7 "When you are in consciousness, you understand the nature of consciousness and you recede. Your progress continues. This consciousness and you recede. Your progress continues. This consciousness is slowly extinguishing itself; knowingly it is disappearing. But nothing affects You, because that is the Absolute. Just like when the flame is gone, the smoke is gone, the sky remains." ... "That is the Brahman of death, the moment of death. Watching occurs, the vital breath is leaving the body, :I-am-ness" is receding, vanishing. That is the greatest moment, the moment of immortality. "The body, the flame, that "I-am-ness," is there; its movements are there, and I observe. And it is extinguished. the vital breath deserts the body, that flame is not there. You observe that. That observation occurs to you. The ignorant one at the moment of death is in a great fright: he is struggling. But not the jnani; for him it is the happiest moment, the most blissful one." Also from TUM ''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.'' ''This itself is the greatest miracle, that I got the news I am have you any doubts that you are? It is self-evident. Prior to knowing that you are, what knowledge did you have? Dhyana means to have an objective. You want to consider something. You are that something, just to be, you are. Just being the being I am. You meditate on something; that knowledge I am is yourself. Abide only there. How can you ask any questions at this point? Because that is the beginning of knowledge.'' ''The feeling I am is the quintessence of everything, but I the Absolute am not that. That I amness is the highest knowledge. And this is surrendered here by the abidance in the action.'' ---- This is a good place to mention that I disagree with you and ZD about the sense of I am requiring some kind of reflection. Reflection is required to know that I know it, but not to know it. It is there, extremely subtle, prior to thought. It is the foundation upon which 'I' can have a thought, or reflect in any way. It is present when consciousness is present, and I suggest it is there in Samadhi, but one does not know that one knows, as reflection is absent. Mooji once said 'a mosquito knows it exists', which is a clue as to how much reflection is required. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2017 23:51:56 GMT -5
Self-reflection is looking in at that sense of I Am from the outside where mind is. "The place you are looking for is the place you are looking from". Or as Rumi said, 'I have been knocking on the door. When it opened I had been knocking from the inside'. You can't look inwards for the place where you are, you can only be(abide) in the place where you are. When looking inwards happens and the sense of I am is found, it is a moment in which the false self necessarily comes into play to a slight extent. In the abidance of 'what we are' there is no looking inwards, which is why the sense of I am is irrelevant. I would say that it is there, but there is no longer a sense of being apart from it at all. The absolute doesn't know the I am in a 'sensory' way.Yes |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2017 23:54:03 GMT -5
The highest knowledge, surrenderable. IOW, from ignorance to highest knowledge and then back to ignorance hehe. Well, back to nothing, I would say, as I define ignorance as false knowledge. One is not born in ignorance, but rather innocence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 0:32:19 GMT -5
Also from TUM ''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.'' ''This itself is the greatest miracle, that I got the news I am have you any doubts that you are? It is self-evident. Prior to knowing that you are, what knowledge did you have? Dhyana means to have an objective. You want to consider something. You are that something, just to be, you are. Just being the being I am. You meditate on something; that knowledge I am is yourself. Abide only there. How can you ask any questions at this point? Because that is the beginning of knowledge.'' ''The feeling I am is the quintessence of everything, but I the Absolute am not that. That I amness is the highest knowledge. And this is surrendered here by the abidance in the action.'' ---- This is a good place to mention that I disagree with you and ZD about the sense of I am requiring some kind of reflection. Reflection is required to know that I know it, but not to know it. It is there, extremely subtle, prior to thought. It is the foundation upon which 'I' can have a thought, or reflect in any way. It is present when consciousness is present, and I suggest it is there in Samadhi, but one does not know that one knows, as reflection is absent. Mooji once said 'a mosquito knows it exists', which is a clue as to how much reflection is required. Do Andy and ZD really say that? Anyway I agree. To know you are or I am requires no reflective thought. Once the attentiveness to it is there, it is direct knowledge without reflection. As I said in a previous post, the unbounded real I that is awareness is mixed together with the limited ego/I in normal experience. But even that mixed sense requires no reflection. But I'm reflecting on it now as I write this. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 1:48:25 GMT -5
Yes I agree it is a sense, and also that the Absolute knows I am, but I don't see this knowing as observational or perceptive in its nature, it is more 'natural' than that. The knowing is too instantaneous to be observational/perceptive in it's nature. So I would say the sense of I am is observed through a process of self-reflection, introspection, or turning attention inwards in a particular way. Isn't 'a process of self-reflection, introspection, or turning attention inwards', 'observational/perceptive in it's nature and not instantaneous'? Not quite, no....there is a movement involved. The absolute doesn't have to move to know I am. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 2:01:59 GMT -5
Also from TUM ''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.'' ''This itself is the greatest miracle, that I got the news I am have you any doubts that you are? It is self-evident. Prior to knowing that you are, what knowledge did you have? Dhyana means to have an objective. You want to consider something. You are that something, just to be, you are. Just being the being I am. You meditate on something; that knowledge I am is yourself. Abide only there. How can you ask any questions at this point? Because that is the beginning of knowledge.'' ''The feeling I am is the quintessence of everything, but I the Absolute am not that. That I amness is the highest knowledge. And this is surrendered here by the abidance in the action.'' ---- This is a good place to mention that I disagree with you and ZD about the sense of I am requiring some kind of reflection. Reflection is required to know that I know it, but not to know it. It is there, extremely subtle, prior to thought. It is the foundation upon which 'I' can have a thought, or reflect in any way. It is present when consciousness is present, and I suggest it is there in Samadhi, but one does not know that one knows, as reflection is absent. Mooji once said 'a mosquito knows it exists', which is a clue as to how much reflection is required. Well, I agree that it is there (prior to thought), and it doesn't make much difference to my position if it is there in samadhi or not...I can see validity in both sides of that issue. What is important for me is understanding that the sense of I am being sensed requires a movement. It seems like you are suggesting that unconscious knowing (I agree there is unconscious knowing) is part of what is experienced. I don't think it is. My breath isn't part of my experience until it is. The sense of I am isn't part of my experience until it is. So when Niz says to focus on I am he is saying to make the unconscious knowing, a conscious one. I could agree that the mosquito unconsciously knows that it exists, but has no capacity to make it a conscious one. Then again, it has no good reason to because it doesn't have to transcend its belief that it is a mosquito! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 2:10:28 GMT -5
This is a good place to mention that I disagree with you and ZD about the sense of I am requiring some kind of reflection. Reflection is required to know that I know it, but not to know it. It is there, extremely subtle, prior to thought. It is the foundation upon which 'I' can have a thought, or reflect in any way. It is present when consciousness is present, and I suggest it is there in Samadhi, but one does not know that one knows, as reflection is absent. Mooji once said 'a mosquito knows it exists', which is a clue as to how much reflection is required. Do Andy and ZD really say that? Anyway I agree. To know you are or I am requires no reflective thought. Once the attentiveness to it is there, it is direct knowledge without reflection. As I said in a previous post, the unbounded real I that is awareness is mixed together with the limited ego/I in normal experience. But even that mixed sense requires no reflection. But I'm reflecting on it now as I write this. I only know I am when my attention is called to it, though can agree with the idea of unconscious knowing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 2:18:29 GMT -5
IOW, from ignorance to highest knowledge and then back to ignorance hehe. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 2:51:34 GMT -5
Do Andy and ZD really say that? Anyway I agree. To know you are or I am requires no reflective thought. Once the attentiveness to it is there, it is direct knowledge without reflection. As I said in a previous post, the unbounded real I that is awareness is mixed together with the limited ego/I in normal experience. But even that mixed sense requires no reflection. But I'm reflecting on it now as I write this. I only know I am when my attention is called to it, though can agree with the idea of unconscious knowing. Yes but once you are attentive to it, it doesn't require reflective thinking to know it. It just is. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 3:10:29 GMT -5
I only know I am when my attention is called to it, though can agree with the idea of unconscious knowing. Yes but once you are attentive to it, it doesn't require reflective thinking to know it. It just is. Right, and I guess that it the value of the practice. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 2, 2017 8:30:46 GMT -5
I only know I am when my attention is called to it, though can agree with the idea of unconscious knowing. Yes but once you are attentive to it, it doesn't require reflective thinking to know it. It just is. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 9:30:39 GMT -5
Yes but once you are attentive to it, it doesn't require reflective thinking to know it. It just is. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 9:32:54 GMT -5
When looking inwards happens and the sense of I am is found, it is a moment in which the false self necessarily comes into play to a slight extent. In the abidance of 'what we are' there is no looking inwards, which is why the sense of I am is irrelevant. I would say that it is there, but there is no longer a sense of being apart from it at all. The absolute doesn't know the I am in a 'sensory' way. If you don't touch that sense of I am you will simply be abiding in being. Conscious of Consciousness. It's a real place that anyone can go to in this very moment to check out for themselves. And see if what I am saying is true or not. Most won't though... To be 'conscious of consciousness' is to know 'I am'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 9:34:51 GMT -5
IOW, from ignorance to highest knowledge and then back to ignorance hehe. To Donovan's "first there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is" maybe we could change the emphasis slightly? First there is A mountain then there is no mountain then there is However it risks SDP's Wilbur restatement of the pre-trans fallacy...the 'there is' of infancy does not equal the 'there is' post SR. It interferes with the rhythm just a little.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 9:48:31 GMT -5
This is a good place to mention that I disagree with you and ZD about the sense of I am requiring some kind of reflection. Reflection is required to know that I know it, but not to know it. It is there, extremely subtle, prior to thought. It is the foundation upon which 'I' can have a thought, or reflect in any way. It is present when consciousness is present, and I suggest it is there in Samadhi, but one does not know that one knows, as reflection is absent. Mooji once said 'a mosquito knows it exists', which is a clue as to how much reflection is required. Anyway I agree. To know you are or I am requires no reflective thought. Once the attentiveness to it is there, it is direct knowledge without reflection. As I said in a previous post, the unbounded real I that is awareness is mixed together with the limited ego/I in normal experience. But even that mixed sense requires no reflection. But I'm reflecting on it now as I write this. Andy and ZD will correct me if I've misunderstood. |
|
