Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:09:24 GMT -5
I must be. If I am awareness. You must be? But that awareness is not brought to the conscious mind in sleep. How do you bring awareness to the conscious mind? I thought the conscious mind rises in awareness. The root thought spawns it. You're saying the conscious mind rises without objects in Samadhi? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 13:11:57 GMT -5
Correct. There is no sense of I in deep Samadhi. There is no reference to anything because it is a state of total unity. There is nothing there other than pure awareness. Awareness is aware, but not as an object of awareness. There is not even identity as awareness because any kind of identity requires reflection and at least two states. In deep Samadhi there is no reflection. This is why it's so hard to talk about. Just curious. How is it different than deep sleep? It's like being wide awake, but without thoughts or perceptions. Some sages have reported this kind of wide awakeness even during deep sleep, but this "body/mind circuitry" (to use Suzanne Segal's expression) has never experienced that. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 13:14:27 GMT -5
You must be? But that awareness is not brought to the conscious mind in sleep. How do you bring awareness to the conscious mind? I thought the conscious mind rises in awareness. The root thought spawns it. You're saying the conscious mind rises without objects in Samadhi? We're saying that in deep Samadhi (what Zen Masters call "absolute Samadhi" and what Hindu sages call "nirvikalpa Samadhi") there is pure awareness without content of any kind. There are no objects, thoughts, or perceptions in deep Samadhi. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:15:40 GMT -5
Just curious. How is it different than deep sleep? It's like being wide awake, but without thoughts or perceptions. Some sages have reported this kind of wide awakeness even during deep sleep, but this "body/mind circuitry" (to use Suzanne Segal's expression) has never experienced that. No seeing, no hearing, no sensing. I've never experienced that. I've experienced no thoughts and all objects appearing faintly, but never disappearing altogether. It sounds awesome. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:17:35 GMT -5
I must be. If I am awareness. This fellow Jan Esman reports on awareness during deep sleep. There have been a few others I've heard of but not many. Portto, once active here but long silent, admitted to it. Stablized awareness, states of consciousness coming and going, including deep sleep. I can't fathom the mechanics of it -- reporting on awareness during deep sleep requires memory formation, doesn't it?, for example. Latest neuroscience positing that sleep is necessary for forgetting, so the idea that memories are formed seems counter. BATGAP Rick suggests that it is some sort of litmus test. However it seems SR doesn't necessarily imply such stabilized awareness, as being aware of deep sleep seems even more rare than SR. I am sometimes aware of sleep but I don't really put much importance on it. I've heard Rick call this a litmus test, but I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about it. It's true to say that if awareness is what you are then that must include sleep. It's a question of whether you remember it. I could ask you if you remember your awareness of exactly two minutes ago. You would probably say no, but you were clearly aware two minutes ago in the waking state. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 13:20:07 GMT -5
It's like being wide awake, but without thoughts or perceptions. Some sages have reported this kind of wide awakeness even during deep sleep, but this "body/mind circuitry" (to use Suzanne Segal's expression) has never experienced that. No seeing, no hearing, no sensing. I've never experienced that. I've experienced no thoughts and all objects appearing faintly, but never disappearing altogether. It sounds awesome. Check the thread titled "Nirvikalpa Samadhi" to read more about this state of unity. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 7, 2017 13:23:04 GMT -5
This fellow Jan Esman reports on awareness during deep sleep. There have been a few others I've heard of but not many. Portto, once active here but long silent, admitted to it. Stablized awareness, states of consciousness coming and going, including deep sleep. I can't fathom the mechanics of it -- reporting on awareness during deep sleep requires memory formation, doesn't it?, for example. Latest neuroscience positing that sleep is necessary for forgetting, so the idea that memories are formed seems counter. BATGAP Rick suggests that it is some sort of litmus test. However it seems SR doesn't necessarily imply such stabilized awareness, as being aware of deep sleep seems even more rare than SR. I am sometimes aware of sleep but I don't really put much importance on it. I've heard Rick call this a litmus test, but I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about it. It's true to say that if awareness is what you are then that must include sleep. It's a question of whether you remember it. I could ask you if you remember your awareness of exactly two minutes ago. You would probably say no, but you were clearly aware two minutes ago in the waking state.Good point on whether or not it's important. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:24:00 GMT -5
Can you achieve Samadhi with the eyes open? Another question, if you are SR s it anything like the sensation of lucid dreaming?
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 13:30:03 GMT -5
This fellow Jan Esman reports on awareness during deep sleep. There have been a few others I've heard of but not many. Portto, once active here but long silent, admitted to it. Stablized awareness, states of consciousness coming and going, including deep sleep. I can't fathom the mechanics of it -- reporting on awareness during deep sleep requires memory formation, doesn't it?, for example. Latest neuroscience positing that sleep is necessary for forgetting, so the idea that memories are formed seems counter. BATGAP Rick suggests that it is some sort of litmus test. However it seems SR doesn't necessarily imply such stabilized awareness, as being aware of deep sleep seems even more rare than SR. I am sometimes aware of sleep but I don't really put much importance on it. I've heard Rick call this a litmus test, but I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about it. It's true to say that if awareness is what you are then that must include sleep. It's a question of whether you remember it. I could ask you if you remember your awareness of exactly two minutes ago. You would probably say no, but you were clearly aware two minutes ago in the waking state. Suzanne Segal wrote about the witness continuing in deep sleep but without content, which sounds remarkably like NS. She writes," The witnessing persisted for months, and each moment was excruciating. Living on the verge of dissolution for weeks on end is stressful beyond belief, and the only respite was the oblivion of sleep into which I plunged for as long and as often as possible. In sleep, the mind finally stopped pumping out its unceasing litany of terror, and the witness was left to witness an unconscious mind." IOW, awareness continued with nothing to be aware of. Her horrifying thoughts of dissolution stopped during sleep, but awareness remained. That sounds like NS to me. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 13:47:23 GMT -5
Can you achieve Samadhi with the eyes open? Another question, if you are SR s it anything like the sensation of lucid dreaming? You can enter Samadhi with the eyes half open, as in standard Zen meditation, but when unification begins to occur, and the event horizon is crossed, selfhood, vision, sound, thoughts, and everything else disappears except pure awareness. The advent of the event horizon can be tangibly felt on the surface of the skin by many people, and everything can be felt to start solidifying, as if the body was in the process of freezing into a block of solid ice. Intensified concentration at that point allows the solidification to continue until the state is fully entered. Zen people call it "body and mind fallen off." |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 7, 2017 14:36:54 GMT -5
Take take on the "I AM" thingy, as a simpleton, is this: Being ON. Meaning: One knows ones purpose and is acting upon it. It's not just (mere) being(ness) or "alive(ness)". It's knowing, at every second of the day, what needs to be done in a given situation, and doing it without even thinking about it. It's natural and effortless. Just my two cent. ? ZD often refers to 'do what's next 100%' -- sounds like what you are saying too. But purpose could be a mind game, eh? Kinda sorta, yes. I use a model that has 8 opposites. One of those is: Protagonist - Antagonist Are you familar with the rest of it? If not pm me. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 7, 2017 14:50:42 GMT -5
What "I AM" means isn't the same for all. Some are just "empty", then the "I AM" is not full. There is nothing else but what one could called (mere) being(ness). Thoughts are expressed by the "I AM" by some via the mind, which is a receiver from that which is beyond (mere) mind. For others there are no thoughts that come from this (beyond) "I AM". The only expression of thought that come from those are from what I call the hive-mind. In christian terms: it comes from satan, an-sat, not true. , here. By 'I am' Niz (nor his teacher) meant the words I am. The words 'I am' are there to represent something else (as are all words, all words represent something). This something else is not verbal in any way whatsoever. The words 'I am' represent the (nonverbal) sense of beingness. Where did Niz say that? And in what context (in what conversational context)? I'm sorry I'm not a Niz scholar. I'm just taking orders.  |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 7, 2017 15:11:48 GMT -5
OK, this was driving me "bananas", so I had to go home and get my book. I did not think my recollection was incorrect. A few quotes, I Am That, very beginning of the book: Q: (already into dialogue) I am always someone with memories and habits. I know no other I am. Niz: ....maybe something prevents you from knowing....Don't you see that all your problems are your body's problems-food, clothing...etc...-all these lose their meaning the moment you realize that you may not be a mere body. Q: What benefit there is in knowing that I am not the body? Niz: ....In a way you are all bodies. Go deep into the sense of 'I am' and you will find. How do you find a thing you have mislaid or forgotten? You keep it in your mind until you recall it. The sense of being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the 'I am', without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalized but which can be experienced. All you need to do is try and try again. After all the sense 'I am' is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it - body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not. Q: Then what am I? Niz: It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. .......... pgs 1, 2 I Am That ......................... Conradq said that I Am is the I - thought. I already defined what a thought is, and you still rejected me, so we're past explaining that again, except Niz elaborates. I said that I Am is a real living thing. Niz says I am is the sense of being. Niz says: When the mind stays in the 'I am'... So mind must be different from the 'I am' (to stay in it, Niz says go deep into the sense of 'I am'). And then the clincher, Niz says the 'I am' is always with you, but you have attached all kinds of other things to it - body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, etc... For me, all that references the I-thought, thought = thought, yes? no?. Therefore the 'I am' cannot possibly equal the I-thought. Niz then says, All these identifications are misleading, meaning, again, misleading means 'I am' cannot possibly = I-thought, IOW, it is misleading to do so (says Niz). And he goes on to say, (because you do this) you take yourself to be what you are not (IOW, you take yourself to be the I- thought, when you are not). And then comes the next Q: Then what am I? And Niz gives the precise answer Gurdjieff gives (below, in signature, "a man is unable to explain what he himself really is"): It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. Any thought is never 'I am'. 'I am' is deeper that any thought, 'I am' is the ground of thought.
Please don't try to talk your way out of this (either satch or Conradq), just say, OK, I was wrong. Upon reading Niz I Am That for the first time (not all but part) there was much immediate recognition. I got a sense that Gurdjieff's use of I Am is very near if not the same as 'I am' of Niz. [And while we're here, the use of the word identification (self-identifications) by Niz fits perfectly with the use by Gurdjieff]. Got a little behind here, sorry. And sorry also that I'm not going to fall down and beg forgiveness for being wrong here. I think you're misreading both me and Nisargadatta. The quote you give here fully supports what I said. "I am" to Nisargadatta is the gateway to the source of the "I am". It is that source that he realized, and that he is aiming for us to realize. He strongly recommends meditating on the "I am" not because it is the Absolute in itself, but because it is the best way to find the source of our sense of being. The feeling of being "I" is like the snake that our minds have overlaid on the non-dual rope. From the "I am" comes every delusion we have, and naturally leads to "I am the body" or "I am X". The first step, therefore, is to detach from identification with objects, and immerse oneself in the subject, the "I am". By doing this, we are able to feel past the "I am" to the inherent, natural bliss at the very heart of our being. Why would this work? Because both are in the same place, just as the snake and the rope are in the same place. That doesn't mean the snake is the rope, it means that by persistently bringing the force of consciousness to the snake, we can see that it isn't there, and that there has only been the rope all along. Nisargadatta does not refer to the "I am" as being the goal, only the method. Beyond the "I am" is the witness, and beyond the witness is what he called "the Supreme". It is the Supreme that is realized in the final stage of this process. The "I am" vanishes in the Supreme. One does not realize one's identity, in the form of "I am the Supreme", though that too can be a useful pointer. But meditating on "I am", the subject, helps free us from the attachment to objects, allowing us to find the source of "I am". Ramana sometimes called this the "I-I", or the "I of the I". THough he too said this was not the final stage, it was very important to meditate upon the feeling of "I" to pass beyond our object-fixation. He even suggested that people repeat "I, I, I," to themselves to help locate this feeling of "I" in themselves. Not because that's the Self, but because that's the subjective sense of ego upon which the rest of our identifications build. The point of that is not to know who this "I" is, but to find it's source. The question "who am I?" does not lead to identification with something subtler, but to the source of the whole delusion of "I". And that's why we are told by both Ramana and Nisargadatta to meditate on this "I am" feeling. That's where Maya first emerges, as Niz says in your quote. I'll see if I can find the time to locate some quotes for you later. Hope this isn't too frustrating for you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 15:20:11 GMT -5
OK, this was driving me "bananas", so I had to go home and get my book. I did not think my recollection was incorrect. A few quotes, I Am That, very beginning of the book: Q: (already into dialogue) I am always someone with memories and habits. I know no other I am. Niz: ....maybe something prevents you from knowing....Don't you see that all your problems are your body's problems-food, clothing...etc...-all these lose their meaning the moment you realize that you may not be a mere body. Q: What benefit there is in knowing that I am not the body? Niz: ....In a way you are all bodies. Go deep into the sense of 'I am' and you will find. How do you find a thing you have mislaid or forgotten? You keep it in your mind until you recall it. The sense of being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the 'I am', without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalized but which can be experienced. All you need to do is try and try again. After all the sense 'I am' is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it - body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not. Q: Then what am I? Niz: It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. .......... pgs 1, 2 I Am That ......................... Conradq said that I Am is the I - thought. I already defined what a thought is, and you still rejected me, so we're past explaining that again, except Niz elaborates. I said that I Am is a real living thing. Niz says I am is the sense of being. Niz says: When the mind stays in the 'I am'... So mind must be different from the 'I am' (to stay in it, Niz says go deep into the sense of 'I am'). And then the clincher, Niz says the 'I am' is always with you, but you have attached all kinds of other things to it - body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, etc... For me, all that references the I-thought, thought = thought, yes? no?. Therefore the 'I am' cannot possibly equal the I-thought. Niz then says, All these identifications are misleading, meaning, again, misleading means 'I am' cannot possibly = I-thought, IOW, it is misleading to do so (says Niz). And he goes on to say, (because you do this) you take yourself to be what you are not (IOW, you take yourself to be the I- thought, when you are not). And then comes the next Q: Then what am I? And Niz gives the precise answer Gurdjieff gives (below, in signature, "a man is unable to explain what he himself really is"): It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. Any thought is never 'I am'. 'I am' is deeper that any thought, 'I am' is the ground of thought.
Please don't try to talk your way out of this (either satch or Conradq), just say, OK, I was wrong. Upon reading Niz I Am That for the first time (not all but part) there was much immediate recognition. I got a sense that Gurdjieff's use of I Am is very near if not the same as 'I am' of Niz. [And while we're here, the use of the word identification (self-identifications) by Niz fits perfectly with the use by Gurdjieff]. Got a little behind here, sorry. And sorry also that I'm not going to fall down and beg forgiveness for being wrong here. I think you're misreading both me and Nisargadatta. The quote you give here fully supports what I said. "I am" to Nisargadatta is the gateway to the source of the "I am". It is that source that he is realized, and that he is aiming for us to realize. He strongly recommends meditating on the "I am" not because it is the Absolute in itself, but because it is the best way to find the source of our sense of being. The feeling of being "I" is like the snake that our minds have overlaid on the non-dual rope. From the "I am" comes every delusion we have, and naturally leads to "I am the body" or "I am X". The first step, therefore, is to detach from identification with objects, and immerse oneself in the subject, the "I am". By doing this, we are able to feel past the "I am" to the inherent, natural bliss at the very heart of our being. Why would this work? Because both are in the same place, just as the snake and the rope are in the same place. That doesn't mean the snake is the rope, it means that by persistently bringing the force of consciousness to the rope, we can see that it isn't there, and that there has only been the rope all along. Nisargadatta does not refer to the "I am" as being the goal, only the method. Beyond the "I am" is the witness, and beyond the witness is what he called "the Supreme". It is the Supreme that is realized in the final stage of this process. The "I am" vanishes in the Supreme. One does not realize one's identity, in the form of "I am the Supreme", though that too can be a useful pointer. But meditating on "I am", the subject, helps free us from the attachment to objects, allowing us to find the source of "I am". Ramana sometimes called this the "I-I", or the "I of the I". THough he too said this was not the final stage, it was very important to meditate upon the feeling of "I" to pass beyond our object-fixation. He even suggested that people repeat "I, I, I," to themselves to help locate this feeling of "I" in themselves. Not because that's the Self, but because that's the subjective sense of ego upon which the rest of our identifications build. The point of that is not to know who this "I" is, but to find it's source. The question "who am I?" does not lead to identification with something subtler, but to the source of the whole delusion of "I". And that's why we are told by both Ramana and Nisargadatta to meditate on this "I am" feeling. That's where Maya first emerges, as Niz says in your quote. I'll see if I can find the time to locate some quotes for you later. Hope this isn't too frustrating for you. I don't see any problem with this, you have understood Niz very well here.  |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 7, 2017 15:38:18 GMT -5
It's not just semantics. There is the ~sense~, I exist, I am here, now (Be, here, now, Neem Karoli Baba via Bhagavan Das via Ram Dass. He didn't say, Think, being, here, now), I Am. When you are just being, there is no (abstract) thought whatsoever. It's not just semantics. If I am wrong you have to negate all the points in my last (long) post. If you don't get this you don not fundamentally understand what Niz is saying. When his teachers said to stay in the 'I am' he did not mean think of the I am or any such. I Am comes previous to any thought. The "I am" is the first thought, from which all others arise. That's why Niz said it "emerges first". Anything that emerges cannot be the reality, which is already the case and does not emerge from or to anything. But the "I am" is not already the case, it is the first emergent delusion of duality, and from that all the other delusions come as well. Once the subject arises, so do the objects, in a perpetual gyre of chasing one's own tail. "Be here now" is good advice, but it's not the end of the process. The "I am" is a thought, but it is not an abstract thought. "Being here now" means observing deep within oneself this whole process of the being that has produced the illusion of self. It does not mean equating the feeling of "I am" with some infinite Self. One has to go to the root and source of "I am" to know the Infinite Self. "In the quotes from I Am That Niz is saying, the I-thought (he says thinking, feeling etc.) and the sense of being 'I am' are diametrically opposed. IOW, if you ~are in~, that is, identified-with I-thought, then you are not-in 'I am'. " The process of thinking and feeling are the result of the I-thought, upon which they depend. And it's quite true that the objects of thinking and feeling are diametrically opposed to the "I am" that observes and thinks and feels them. That's how duality works. Subject is opposite object. That's the essence of dualism. And the "I am" is the other half of that dualistic opposition. It is the source of "I am" that is non-dual, not the "I am" itself. The Supreme Reality has no such dualistic opposites, either within itself or in relationship to anything else. Those are the delusions that must be seen and understood and passed beyond in order to realize the Supreme. And to do that, one must examine the subject who is stuck in this dualism, the "I am", and loosen its fixation on objects, or "I am X", so that one can begin to relinqush attachments and fall out of its delusional viewpoint. "If Conradg means in the sense of being, and you also, then clean up the language specificity. Get the word thought out. (I consider I have been very clear about this). " Well, no. The "I am" is just a thought, nothing more. It doesn't feel that way, true. It feels like it is our true being. Everything in our lives depends upon it. But that's precisely why it needs to be examined and seen for what it is. It is the source of the "I am" that is beyond thought. There's a reason why Ramana always refers to the "I"-thought. You want to tell him to stop doing that? "OK...one more thing. You see, most beginners are completely and almost continually lost in thought, the ever-present mind chatter. If a clear distinction is not made then they can think, OK, it's OK to think the I-thought. But it isn't see? There is all the difference in the world, and if this distinction is not made someone can go years thinking the are doing something significant, when indeed they are not. " Of course it's okay to think the "I"-thought. Everyone is always doing that, constantly. No need to stop doing that, because you can't stop it. "You" are the very thing you would be trying to stop. It's at the very root of all thinking. You can't stop the "I"-thought. The most you can do is examine the "I"-thought deeply, and find its source, which is in our very heart. If anything, beginners need to really get into the "I"-thought and thoroughly experience and feel it. That's what Ramana and Niz are both recommending. Seems crazy, doesn't it? Well, yes, in a way it is. But there's an intelligence behind this that comes to the fore as one gives it a try. The delusion of the snake begins to break down when you bring a torch to examine it directly. The more light brought to the "I am", the more it dissolves, the more we feel past it to the non-dual reality that the "I am" is sitting upon. That's how one matures. Without that process, one never moves past the beginner stages. |
|
