|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 25, 2016 12:46:12 GMT -5
Things like Samadhi and cosmic consciousness experiences can be amazingly blissful and even transformative, but there is still that which transcends experience and the person having such experiences isn't that. Can I be clear what you mean by an experience? An experience can simply mean that something is known to you. If that's how you are using the word then if there is something which transcends experience you wouldn't know about it because it would be unknown. When we have an experience, it is because we are conscious of objects which can be thoughts, emotions, sensations etc. If samadhi is a thought free state and therefore not an experience because there is no object to be known, it is nevertheless known to me otherwise I couldn't even talk about Samadhi. It's the same with deep sleep. There is no mind, therefore no experience, yet we can talk about sleep incessantly. However, we cannot say there was no awareness during sleep. It has been forgotten in the same way we cannot remember the awareness that was "attached" to a thought we had one minute ago. We remember we slept, we remember the thought we had one minute ago, but in both cases not the awareness that went with it. Yet it was the same awareness we only know now.
By experience I was referencing something that happens in the time/space framework.
Samadhi is an experience. The person goes into Samadhi and then comes out of Samadhi. While it can seem like there is 'no person' in Samadhi, the mind state of Samadhi belongs to the personal self. It is a mind state absent thought, but not absent perceptions which are, personal.
I would say there is an experience of deep sleep. There is just no consciousness of that experience. The awareness isn't forgotten in deep sleep, there is simply nothing to be aware of other than deep sleep. If someone wacks me over the head while I'm sleeping, I wake up, and realize I was in the experience of deep sleep, and maybe need to find new roommates, hehe.
As far as this idea of remembering awareness, I would say awareness is beyond memory, and not memorable. Samadhi, is memorable. You cannot know that which is knowing knowledge, and awareness is that.
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 25, 2016 12:59:47 GMT -5
Sure, that's why if we put it in terms of reflective telemetry it isn't supernatural at all.
Jung divides the unconscious between the personal and collective. He also states that as a source of information, the collective unconscious is 'better' than sensory perception and memory. He never got around to the idea of telemetry and how the collective unconscious makes itself conscious to the individual, and my eyeballs hurt at the moment.
I'm wondering if there might be a psychology department somewhere in the world that might have some interest in the potential of your writing at the Phd level, and there are lots of creative ways that peeps are getting this kind of work funded nowadays.  I'd say that from that conditioned point of view that demands a rational world, "the supernatural" is baked into the cake with the ingredient of acausality. Yea I'm sure there is a psych department where I would fit in well, hopefully not a ward hehe.
As far as the acausality, in a nutshell, the link between compartmentalization and reverse compartmentalization provides a causal framework for synchronicity. The tapestry of compartmentalization is highly intricate but perfectly ordered, as the individual is subjected to a plethora of collective forces in shaping the personal unconscious. With consciousness of the 'force', how the force manifests in a myriad of ways suddenly seems less overwhelming. It's very simple stuff but an understanding of the simplicity brings a lot of information that makes people uncomfortable. This is why I'm not attempting to write for money at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 25, 2016 13:16:12 GMT -5
Can I be clear what you mean by an experience? An experience can simply mean that something is known to you. If that's how you are using the word then if there is something which transcends experience you wouldn't know about it because it would be unknown. When we have an experience, it is because we are conscious of objects which can be thoughts, emotions, sensations etc. If samadhi is a thought free state and therefore not an experience because there is no object to be known, it is nevertheless known to me otherwise I couldn't even talk about Samadhi. It's the same with deep sleep. There is no mind, therefore no experience, yet we can talk about sleep incessantly. However, we cannot say there was no awareness during sleep. It has been forgotten in the same way we cannot remember the awareness that was "attached" to a thought we had one minute ago. We remember we slept, we remember the thought we had one minute ago, but in both cases not the awareness that went with it. Yet it was the same awareness we only know now.
By experience I was referencing something that happens in the time/space framework.
Samadhi is an experience. The person goes into Samadhi and then comes out of Samadhi. While it can seem like there is 'no person' in Samadhi, the mind state of Samadhi belongs to the personal self. It is a mind state absent thought, but not absent perceptions which are, personal.
I would say there is an experience of deep sleep. There is just no consciousness of that experience. The awareness isn't forgotten in deep sleep, there is simply nothing to be aware of other than deep sleep. If someone wacks me over the head while I'm sleeping, I wake up, and realize I was in the experience of deep sleep, and maybe need to find new roommates, hehe.
As far as this idea of remembering awareness, I would say awareness is beyond memory, and not memorable. Samadhi, is memorable. You cannot know that which is knowing knowledge, and awareness is that.
If a body/mind goes deeply enough into Samadhi, the person will disappear, and so will all perception. The coalescence into unity can be physically felt as it begins, but after a certain boundary is passed, everything disappears except pure awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 25, 2016 13:57:55 GMT -5
By experience I was referencing something that happens in the time/space framework.
Samadhi is an experience. The person goes into Samadhi and then comes out of Samadhi. While it can seem like there is 'no person' in Samadhi, the mind state of Samadhi belongs to the personal self. It is a mind state absent thought, but not absent perceptions which are, personal.
I would say there is an experience of deep sleep. There is just no consciousness of that experience. The awareness isn't forgotten in deep sleep, there is simply nothing to be aware of other than deep sleep. If someone wacks me over the head while I'm sleeping, I wake up, and realize I was in the experience of deep sleep, and maybe need to find new roommates, hehe.
As far as this idea of remembering awareness, I would say awareness is beyond memory, and not memorable. Samadhi, is memorable. You cannot know that which is knowing knowledge, and awareness is that.
If a body/mind goes deeply enough into Samadhi, the person will disappear, and so will all perception. The coalescence into unity can be physically felt as it begins, but after a certain boundary is passed, everything disappears except pure awareness. Sure I don't doubt disappearance is possible. I went into a ball of light one time and there was no body there for that experience. When I reappeared in form, I 'knew' everything was that ball of light (which was more alive than a light bulb). I call that a source experience.
As far as Samadhi, based on accounts I tend to relate Samadhi to a mind state where human perception and bodily functioning still takes place, just with some precarious absences. But I don't mind calling human disappearance Samadhi. 
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 25, 2016 14:02:04 GMT -5
By experience I was referencing something that happens in the time/space framework.
Samadhi is an experience. The person goes into Samadhi and then comes out of Samadhi. While it can seem like there is 'no person' in Samadhi, the mind state of Samadhi belongs to the personal self. It is a mind state absent thought, but not absent perceptions which are, personal.
I would say there is an experience of deep sleep. There is just no consciousness of that experience. The awareness isn't forgotten in deep sleep, there is simply nothing to be aware of other than deep sleep. If someone wacks me over the head while I'm sleeping, I wake up, and realize I was in the experience of deep sleep, and maybe need to find new roommates, hehe.
As far as this idea of remembering awareness, I would say awareness is beyond memory, and not memorable. Samadhi, is memorable. You cannot know that which is knowing knowledge, and awareness is that.
If a body/mind goes deeply enough into Samadhi, the person will disappear, and so will all perception. The coalescence into unity can be physically felt as it begins, but after a certain boundary is passed, everything disappears except pure awareness.
Sorta like the Magic Man!
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 14:43:13 GMT -5
This is what I call flawful logic, resulting from too much biased analysis. My comment that it was effortless was in response to Lolly's comment that I should stop trying to make him look ugly. It doesn't imply that there was no conscious discernment or rationale involved. Doesn't conscious discernment and rationale require some amount of effort? Are you serial?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 15:04:25 GMT -5
Yeah, that's my position, though you omitted anything personal I said to her. From the beginning, the conversation was really about judgment, mine and hers. Okay so what is your good faith reading of what she said?First she mistakenly thought I may be asking her for help or that I was teaching her. Then she mistakenly thought that I was shifting to generalities, and proceeded to show that my previous comments were personal. Then she mistakenly thought I was was saying it's hard for me to be agreeable. Then she mistakenly concluded that I was insisting my a$$essment of her emotional state trumps hers. Then she expressed her concern about labeling and level playing fields and positioning oneself as superior. (referring to me) There is a subtext to all of that, and I don't know if that's the 'good faith' reading you are looking for or not. There is a literal interpretation and then there is my perception of WIBIGO. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 15:12:08 GMT -5
So, are you trying to one-up me there? Was it derisive? Are you being smug? Do you even remember how this dialog started?  Are you willing to admit that this reveals something about (to use your turn of phrase) your "emotional self"? For someone who writes so much about an interest in the process of becoming conscious your relative interest in opportunities to actually see something going on in your mind in real time seem to me rather attenuated.  So, that's your enigma impression, you know me better than I know myself? Yes, I just recently wrote a To Whom It May Concern generic post, that what we write reveals more about ourselves, than the person we have written about. And yes, that includes me. Did you ever play Pin the Tail on the Donkey as a kid? I think you missed, try again. That's a generalization that's not always true. Imagine an insightful psychologist and an 'unconscious' patient, or even a mother and child. If you mean just on this forum, I would suggest you can't know that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 15:16:10 GMT -5
Well, I think I put it more gently when I said recently that it can be useful to understand how the feminine mind and heart work together. Regardless, your comments don't reflect what she actually said, even if it may have been what she think/feels. She'll likely call you on that, which is something I know about her that she doesn't.  I don't feel the need to go back and see if you are right or if I am right. I read stuff quickly a lot of the time, most times only once. I will stick with my first impression, I welcome quinn to correct me if necessary. My point was that your "impression" was not "what she said". You don't really need her to confirm or deny that, just read what she said. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 15:20:58 GMT -5
I don't feel the need to go back and see if you are right or if I am right. I read stuff quickly a lot of the time, most times only once. I will stick with my first impression, I welcome quinn to correct me if necessary. You got the gist of it right, as long as you exchange !@#$%^& for "Egads".  I don't know what E's talking about that I'm unaware of. Calling out people for unflattering generalizations of females? I hope he doesn't think I don't know I do that. I also let a lot pass. Energy conservation. Did I say you're unaware of something? I don't recall it. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 25, 2016 15:47:22 GMT -5
You got the gist of it right, as long as you exchange !@#$%^& for "Egads". I don't know what E's talking about that I'm unaware of. Calling out people for unflattering generalizations of females? I hope he doesn't think I don't know I do that. I also let a lot pass. Energy conservation. Did I say you're unaware of something? I don't recall it. Did I mis-read this? " your comments don't reflect what she actually said, even if it may have been what she think/feels. She'll likely call you on that, which is something I know about her that she doesn't. " (I bolded the part I'm referring to.) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 15:57:55 GMT -5
Can I be clear what you mean by an experience? An experience can simply mean that something is known to you. If that's how you are using the word then if there is something which transcends experience you wouldn't know about it because it would be unknown. When we have an experience, it is because we are conscious of objects which can be thoughts, emotions, sensations etc. If samadhi is a thought free state and therefore not an experience because there is no object to be known, it is nevertheless known to me otherwise I couldn't even talk about Samadhi. It's the same with deep sleep. There is no mind, therefore no experience, yet we can talk about sleep incessantly. However, we cannot say there was no awareness during sleep. It has been forgotten in the same way we cannot remember the awareness that was "attached" to a thought we had one minute ago. We remember we slept, we remember the thought we had one minute ago, but in both cases not the awareness that went with it. Yet it was the same awareness we only know now.
By experience I was referencing something that happens in the time/space framework.
Samadhi is an experience. The person goes into Samadhi and then comes out of Samadhi. While it can seem like there is 'no person' in Samadhi, the mind state of Samadhi belongs to the personal self. It is a mind state absent thought, but not absent perceptions which are, personal.
I would say there is an experience of deep sleep. There is just no consciousness of that experience. The awareness isn't forgotten in deep sleep, there is simply nothing to be aware of other than deep sleep. If someone wacks me over the head while I'm sleeping, I wake up, and realize I was in the experience of deep sleep, and maybe need to find new roommates, hehe.
As far as this idea of remembering awareness, I would say awareness is beyond memory, and not memorable. Samadhi, is memorable. You cannot know that which is knowing knowledge, and awareness is that.
Right, awareness isn't something mind knows as it is not an experience but rather that which makes experience possible. Some sort of movement of mind is necessary for experience to occur (as experience IS movement. We can also say mind is a movement that IS experience) and when mind is not moving, as in deep sleep, there is no experience, but one is just as aware as in the waking state. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 16:00:51 GMT -5
Did I say you're unaware of something? I don't recall it. Did I mis-read this? " your comments don't reflect what she actually said, even if it may have been what she think/feels. She'll likely call you on that, which is something I know about her that she doesn't. " (I bolded the part I'm referring to.) Oh, that was another one of my jokes, all of which have been going over like lead balloons lately. Thank God for open mike night. I need the practice.  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 25, 2016 16:07:25 GMT -5
Did I mis-read this? " your comments don't reflect what she actually said, even if it may have been what she think/feels. She'll likely call you on that, which is something I know about her that she doesn't. " (I bolded the part I'm referring to.) Oh, that was another one of my jokes, all of which have been going over like lead balloons lately. Thank God for open mike night. I need the practice. Haha. Sorry - missed it.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 17:04:08 GMT -5
Oh, that was another one of my jokes, all of which have been going over like lead balloons lately. Thank God for open mike night. I need the practice. Haha. Sorry - missed it. Maybe I should't quit my day job just yet?  |
|
Are you willing to admit that this reveals something about (to use your turn of phrase) your "emotional self"?
