|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 7:40:16 GMT -5
If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty.
I say Samadhi is a personal experience because you can reflect upon its occurrence in the framework within which all experiences take place (time and space). One day I went into samadhi and didn't have a thought for 6 hours. I was still apparently perceiving things through the same body and instrument I perceive with now. I wasn't using the mind to differentiate and life had a very groovy oneness feel to it, an aliveness that wasn't mind generated. Nevertheless, if there is still human perception, there is room for personal experience. Memories still register in Samadhi. Otherwise it would just be a dumbed up state like a trance of hypnotic spell, or of course, a delusion.
Awareness transcends the experiential framework entirely (including a oneness experience or no mind or deep sleep). None of this implies you are actually a separate person.
If "samadhi" is not permanent, it's not ananda. That been said, Pre.... ...go figure... If ananda is permanent no mind, then anyone in ananda would never be able to report back that ananda exists. Strange thing how using language requires the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 7:42:06 GMT -5
If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty. Logic is for mathematicians and philosophers, not spiritual seekers. Which are you? I'm basically a bum satch, so maybe none of the above. Anyway, the point was just because something seems to be doesn't mean it 'is'. It defeats the whole purpose of using the word 'seems'. If the vacuum salesman at your door is in a clown suit but seems like a nice guy, maybe inviting him in for Sanka and crimpets isn't the best idea. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 26, 2016 7:43:32 GMT -5
Doesn't conscious discernment and rationale require some amount of effort? Conscious discernment isn't always rational. In fact, the rational function of mind will obscure what you're not conscious of. In the converse, yes, of course peeps express conditioned responses reflexively (so that they don't feel like an effort), and in some cases rational examination of that conditioning can be enlightening. Okay just look at the rationale. Doesn't a conscious rationale for a judgement require effort? |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 26, 2016 7:54:45 GMT -5
If you want to correct me, please quote it right instead of .... That would be somethin'.... There is no correct quote of it, that's what a misquote is. I don't agree. For example, when I grab any book here that lays around and quote like this: "The wish and the necessity to communicate, to exchange ideas and to interact across language communities in daily life is becomming increasingly urgent in today's world." - (Johann Vielberth - An idea for an international system of communication) That would be a correct quote. If I would quote: "You gotta listen to some peeps because they need to be heard." (Johann Vielberth - An idea of an international system of communication) That would be a misquote. A wrong quote. A false quote. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 26, 2016 8:02:24 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.
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. This has NOT been my experience, but from what I've read, there ARE a few people who can relate to this. Various people have claimed that they are wide awake 24/7 even when the body is in deep sleep. Suzanne Segal claimed that this happened to her after selfhood collapsed. Various Zen Masters have also claimed the same thing. A few days ago I received an email from someone who was anesthesized for a medical procedure. After his body was rendered unconscious, wakefulness continued throughout the procedure. However (perhaps fortunately), there was no perception or thoughts of any kind during that period of time. I told him that what he described sounded like the pure awareness of deep Samadhi, but since I've never remembered pure awareness continuing after the body falls sleep, there's no way to know for sure. During sleep, the body must be aware to some degree, because it can respond appropriately to external stimuli, but for most people it is certainly not the kind of empty clear awareness that is remembered after deep Samadhi, or after events like the one that was described in the email I received. How pure awareness can be remembered when there are no thoughts or perceptions, is a mystery to me, but the fact that it happens is unquestionable. I can only say that awareness can be aware of itself and can non-conceptually know of it's existence in the absence of all else. It can be imagined or theorized that one is just as aware in deep sleep as in the waking state, but I suspect that most people have no basis in direct experience (and by "experience" I mean whatever happens to the body/mind when thoughts and perceptions are absent) by which to verify this. People who have gone into deep states of Samadhi will understand what I'm saying here, but I doubt that anyone who has not experienced pure awareness without thoughts or perceptions will understand the sort of thing that's being pointed to. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 26, 2016 8:24:19 GMT -5
If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty.
I say Samadhi is a personal experience because you can reflect upon its occurrence in the framework within which all experiences take place (time and space). One day I went into samadhi and didn't have a thought for 6 hours. I was still apparently perceiving things through the same body and instrument I perceive with now. I wasn't using the mind to differentiate and life had a very groovy oneness feel to it, an aliveness that wasn't mind generated. Nevertheless, if there is still human perception, there is room for personal experience. Memories still register in Samadhi. Otherwise it would just be a dumbed up state like a trance of hypnotic spell, or of course, a delusion.
Awareness transcends the experiential framework entirely (including a oneness experience or no mind or deep sleep). None of this implies you are actually a separate person.
If "samadhi" is not permanent, it's not ananda. That been said, Pre.... ...go figure... We've been over this ground before. Nirvikalpa Samadhi (thought and perception-free Samadhi) is transient. Only sahaja Samadhi is permanent. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2016 9:53:43 GMT -5
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. This has NOT been my experience, but from what I've read, there ARE a few people who can relate to this. Various people have claimed that they are wide awake 24/7 even when the body is in deep sleep. Suzanne Segal claimed that this happened to her after selfhood collapsed. Various Zen Masters have also claimed the same thing. A few days ago I received an email from someone who was anesthesized for a medical procedure. After his body was rendered unconscious, wakefulness continued throughout the procedure. However (perhaps fortunately), there was no perception or thoughts of any kind during that period of time. I told him that what he described sounded like the pure awareness of deep Samadhi, but since I've never remembered pure awareness continuing after the body falls sleep, there's no way to know for sure. During sleep, the body must be aware to some degree, because it can respond appropriately to external stimuli, but for most people it is certainly not the kind of empty clear awareness that is remembered after deep Samadhi, or after events like the one that was described in the email I received. How pure awareness can be remembered when there are no thoughts or perceptions, is a mystery to me, but the fact that it happens is unquestionable. I can only say that awareness can be aware of itself and can non-conceptually know of it's existence in the absence of all else. It can be imagined or theorized that one is just as aware in deep sleep as in the waking state, but I suspect that most people have no basis in direct experience (and by "experience" I mean whatever happens to the body/mind when thoughts and perceptions are absent) by which to verify this. People who have gone into deep states of Samadhi will understand what I'm saying here, but I doubt that anyone who has not experienced pure awareness without thoughts or perceptions will understand the sort of thing that's being pointed to. I still question the depth of the samadhi I've reached in meditation relative to the experiences you've described of the discontinuous threshold, but what I can say is that there is a similarity of effect between meditation and deep sleep. Both deep sleep and deep meditation are rejuvenating. Both often involve a period of initial disorientation when emerging from them. Also, the body seems to need less sleep when the meditation is done often and deeply. An interesting point of comparison with regard to the question of consciously experiencing either is the sense of time. In both instances, there is a discontinuity on the clock, but in samadhi, there is a memory of a sense of timelessness that I can't say I've ever experienced in dreamless sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 26, 2016 9:59:15 GMT -5
This has NOT been my experience, but from what I've read, there ARE a few people who can relate to this. Various people have claimed that they are wide awake 24/7 even when the body is in deep sleep. Suzanne Segal claimed that this happened to her after selfhood collapsed. Various Zen Masters have also claimed the same thing. A few days ago I received an email from someone who was anesthesized for a medical procedure. After his body was rendered unconscious, wakefulness continued throughout the procedure. However (perhaps fortunately), there was no perception or thoughts of any kind during that period of time. I told him that what he described sounded like the pure awareness of deep Samadhi, but since I've never remembered pure awareness continuing after the body falls sleep, there's no way to know for sure. During sleep, the body must be aware to some degree, because it can respond appropriately to external stimuli, but for most people it is certainly not the kind of empty clear awareness that is remembered after deep Samadhi, or after events like the one that was described in the email I received. How pure awareness can be remembered when there are no thoughts or perceptions, is a mystery to me, but the fact that it happens is unquestionable. I can only say that awareness can be aware of itself and can non-conceptually know of it's existence in the absence of all else. It can be imagined or theorized that one is just as aware in deep sleep as in the waking state, but I suspect that most people have no basis in direct experience (and by "experience" I mean whatever happens to the body/mind when thoughts and perceptions are absent) by which to verify this. People who have gone into deep states of Samadhi will understand what I'm saying here, but I doubt that anyone who has not experienced pure awareness without thoughts or perceptions will understand the sort of thing that's being pointed to. I still question the depth of the samadhi I've reached in meditation relative to the experiences you've described of the discontinuous threshold, but what I can say is that there is a similarity of effect between meditation and deep sleep. Both deep sleep and deep meditation are rejuvenating. Both often involve a period of initial disorientation when emerging from them. Also, the body seems to need less sleep when the meditation is done often and deeply. An interesting point of comparison with regard to the question of consciously experiencing either is the sense of time. In both instances, there is a discontinuity on the clock, but in samadhi, there is a memory of a sense of timelessness that I can't say I've ever experienced in dreamless sleep. Why and what for do you use this sanskrit term, samadhi, Laughter? How would you call that in western terminology? What do you mean by "there is a memory of a sense of timelessness in samadhi"? What EXACTLY does that mean, when you say it? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 10:18:02 GMT -5
Oh, when you say "don't preform actions" you mean don't retaliate? If so, I'll simply disagree that this burns karma, which likely comes down to how I see karma as opposed to how you see it. I don't see karma as punishment for bad behavior such that sucking it up and taking whatcha got comin will change anything. Is that how you see karma or am I way off base? I see karma as the need to resolve ignorance for one's own peace of mind. This requires clarity, which often comes in the form of challenging experiences. However, it doesn't have to, as clarity is not tied to experience. And actually neither clarity nor ignorance is tied to action. Action is irrelevant in those terms, as action is simply an expression of what one is being, and what one is being is what must change for karma to 'burn'. Not retaliating is a result, not a cause. Last paragraph, after last comma, correct. Then what does this mean?: "Basically, karma ends when you cease to perpetuate it. That means basically, when sh!t comes into your life, you ~suck-it-up~ and don't preform actions which puts the energy back out there (into the universe). The link (just found it, haven't been there before) calls that burning karma." |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 10:21:54 GMT -5
In fact, he did say it looked ugly to him too, though that was while he was claiming to be mirroring or non-zen sticking or something. I don't buy the mirroring and so I don't differentiate between the words and the attitude of the speaker of them. Mostly, there's too much history to say those words aren't an expression of his evolving attitude. It's worth considering that it was satire. The tone of it revealed that it wasn't his usual expression. It was ramped up, yes, but I don't assume it was satire. Maybe he was having one of those 'bad days'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 10:51:41 GMT -5
If it "seems" like there is no person in samadhi, that's because there is no person in samadhi, because that's how it seems. If something seems to be a certain way that's because it is, otherwise why have the thought that it "seems" to be this way or that way at all. If something didn't seem to be a certain way then you wouldn't think it. But now, as a person who is not in samadhi at this moment, you say that it seems like you weren't there. At the time of being in samadhi (which is actually outside of time because it is free of thoughts and thoughts only happen in time) it would not have been possible to have the thought that you weren't there because samadhi is without thoughts. But now that you once more identify yourself as a person, you look back to what appeared to be an absence of you as a person. But you are saying that it "seemed" like there was no person because you identify yourself as a person. For you, the person is what is real. The idea of no person contradicts the reality of what you take yourself to be which is a person, therefore you are forced to come to the conclusion that it only seemed like there was no person. But what was aware of the absence of a person? It couldn't be you as a person because if you as a person were absent, there would no person to know of your own absence. So that means there must be something else which knows both the presence and absence of the person. The trouble starts because you mistakenly think you are the person who knows this. The answer that resolves this apparent paradox is that in reality there is no separation or difference between the person and the awareness from which it is projected. It is all one thing, or not two (Advaita). Making the mistake of seeing person, world and consciousness as separate is what is called ignorance. So when you say that there appears to be no person in samadhi, you are separating yourself from what you are which exists whether there is a person or not. And because you are already complete you are not changed or diminished by the presence or absence of the person. This can never be understood by the mind and writing about it and discussing it conceptually will make no difference. You can continue to discuss this topic in this forum for a million lifetimes and you will not be one inch closer to finding out what you are as long as you think you are a separate and limited person. The only way to be free of this illusion is to destroy the mind. That doesn't mean that thoughts don't arise again, rendering you incapable of tying your shoelaces or checking for traffic on the road before crossing. It means that once mind has dissolved into the Self you will never again feel that you are the mind or identify with it as a person. Yet the personal will continue to appear but there is no one who owns it. But telling someone that everything is Brahman (Consciousness), meaning there is no separation or difference between consciousness, mind and world, is of no use because you first have to see consciousness as separate from thought and perception in order to see that they are actually the same. Yes, it seems strange. When you kill the mind then what remains is just awareness. To become more and more established in that awareness is to loosen the bonds of attachment to objects. The separation will still be apparent until realization when the unmanifest and manifest realities collapses into one reality resulting in the realization that there is only one Self without a second. No differences. No separation. Yes, apparent differences and apparent separation of mountains and rivers and trees, but right here, right now, as one flow of life it is all Brahman and Brahman is in all things. It can only be realized directly, without mind, by jumping into the abyss and surrendering totally. If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty.
I say Samadhi is a personal experience because you can reflect upon its occurrence in the framework within which all experiences take place (time and space). One day I went into samadhi and didn't have a thought for 6 hours. I was still apparently perceiving things through the same body and instrument I perceive with now. I wasn't using the mind to differentiate and life had a very groovy oneness feel to it, an aliveness that wasn't mind generated. Nevertheless, if there is still human perception, there is room for personal experience. Memories still register in Samadhi. Otherwise it would just be a dumbed up state like a trance of hypnotic spell, or of course, a delusion.
Awareness transcends the experiential framework entirely (including a oneness experience or no mind or deep sleep). None of this implies you are actually a separate person.
I can't speak from 'personal' Samahdi experience (which I guess is the point) but all that registers as true. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 10:54:09 GMT -5
If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty. Logic is for mathematicians and philosophers, not spiritual seekers. Which are you? But it was your logic. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 11:06:47 GMT -5
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. Yea that's not what I would call a 'good faith' reading. Do you think she could read that and say 'oh yea that's pretty much what I was thinking'? Oh well. Okay, take the word 'mistakenly' out of it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 11:33:19 GMT -5
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. This has NOT been my experience, but from what I've read, there ARE a few people who can relate to this. Various people have claimed that they are wide awake 24/7 even when the body is in deep sleep. Suzanne Segal claimed that this happened to her after selfhood collapsed. Various Zen Masters have also claimed the same thing. A few days ago I received an email from someone who was anesthesized for a medical procedure. After his body was rendered unconscious, wakefulness continued throughout the procedure. However (perhaps fortunately), there was no perception or thoughts of any kind during that period of time. I told him that what he described sounded like the pure awareness of deep Samadhi, but since I've never remembered pure awareness continuing after the body falls sleep, there's no way to know for sure. During sleep, the body must be aware to some degree, because it can respond appropriately to external stimuli, but for most people it is certainly not the kind of empty clear awareness that is remembered after deep Samadhi, or after events like the one that was described in the email I received. How pure awareness can be remembered when there are no thoughts or perceptions, is a mystery to me, but the fact that it happens is unquestionable. I can only say that awareness can be aware of itself and can non-conceptually know of it's existence in the absence of all else. It can be imagined or theorized that one is just as aware in deep sleep as in the waking state, but I suspect that most people have no basis in direct experience (and by "experience" I mean whatever happens to the body/mind when thoughts and perceptions are absent) by which to verify this. People who have gone into deep states of Samadhi will understand what I'm saying here, but I doubt that anyone who has not experienced pure awareness without thoughts or perceptions will understand the sort of thing that's being pointed to. I'm not interested in discussing 'the experience of Samadhi' as I'm not qualified to do so, and doing so simply invites those who have experienced it to remind me that I need to experience it. I AM willing to discuss the nature of experience, and since how experience happens without thought or perception is a mystery to you, it seems that we are on 'level ground' with respect to that subject. I say the movement of what we call mind is not only required for experience to happen, it actually IS experience happening. To say something else is experiencing that is not in time and does not perceive or think, would require a radically new definition of experiencing, which I'm open to. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 11:38:05 GMT -5
This has NOT been my experience, but from what I've read, there ARE a few people who can relate to this. Various people have claimed that they are wide awake 24/7 even when the body is in deep sleep. Suzanne Segal claimed that this happened to her after selfhood collapsed. Various Zen Masters have also claimed the same thing. A few days ago I received an email from someone who was anesthesized for a medical procedure. After his body was rendered unconscious, wakefulness continued throughout the procedure. However (perhaps fortunately), there was no perception or thoughts of any kind during that period of time. I told him that what he described sounded like the pure awareness of deep Samadhi, but since I've never remembered pure awareness continuing after the body falls sleep, there's no way to know for sure. During sleep, the body must be aware to some degree, because it can respond appropriately to external stimuli, but for most people it is certainly not the kind of empty clear awareness that is remembered after deep Samadhi, or after events like the one that was described in the email I received. How pure awareness can be remembered when there are no thoughts or perceptions, is a mystery to me, but the fact that it happens is unquestionable. I can only say that awareness can be aware of itself and can non-conceptually know of it's existence in the absence of all else. It can be imagined or theorized that one is just as aware in deep sleep as in the waking state, but I suspect that most people have no basis in direct experience (and by "experience" I mean whatever happens to the body/mind when thoughts and perceptions are absent) by which to verify this. People who have gone into deep states of Samadhi will understand what I'm saying here, but I doubt that anyone who has not experienced pure awareness without thoughts or perceptions will understand the sort of thing that's being pointed to. I still question the depth of the samadhi I've reached in meditation relative to the experiences you've described of the discontinuous threshold, but what I can say is that there is a similarity of effect between meditation and deep sleep. Both deep sleep and deep meditation are rejuvenating. Both often involve a period of initial disorientation when emerging from them. Also, the body seems to need less sleep when the meditation is done often and deeply. An interesting point of comparison with regard to the question of consciously experiencing either is the sense of time. In both instances, there is a discontinuity on the clock, but in samadhi, there is a memory of a sense of timelessness that I can't say I've ever experienced in dreamless sleep. Maybe you shouldn't meditate when you are sleepy.  |
|
