|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 7, 2017 20:28:14 GMT -5
I don't get what all the fuss about awareness and identification is all about, actually. It's about Love. Why is that so hard to understand? Who cares about all those definitions and such? Really. It's that simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 21:42:43 GMT -5
I've doing zazen for 30 years. Never experienced this. There were times when I would get disoriented and forget who or what I was. The shadows through the half open eyes would start to become things I was unfamiliar with, but I'd snap out of it quickly before anything else happened, back to the breath. Sense I warned against this kind of experience. Some in the zendo would even hallucinate. He encouraged us to ignore this and return to the breath. This was a Soto zendo. When I used to practice zazen, the eyes were half open, unfocused, and pointed downward at about a 45 degree angle. When I was focused on following the breath, for example, I would be so focused on the breathing process that nothing was seen through the eyes. The first time I entered deep Samadhi I had no idea what was happening. I had been doing a breath following exercise, and then I shifted to feeling the breathing process. As I concentrated more and more strongly on feeling what was happening, breathing slowed down and a subtle shift occurred into BEING the breath rather than FEELING the breath. As this happened, I was vaguely aware of a skin surface numbness that started on the backs of my hands and began to spread up my arms to my shoulders and ultimately to the forehead. Some Zen people call this "off sensation." Coupled with the off sensation was a strange sense of everything solidifying into a state of unity. It's hard to describe, but selfhood soon disappeared and there was no longer an observer separate from what was happening. A few random thoughts were still arising, but it felt like awareness or consciousness was being pulled inward. I sometimes describe it as if one has gotten onto an elevator in the mind and descended into the depths of being. As thoughts came to an end, everything just went deeper and deeper until finally nothing remained other than a crystalline blissful state of pure awareness. The body was initially like a frozen block of ice, but eventually there was no sense of even having a body. I've also described it as if awareness has sunk to the bottom of deep sea and remained there motionless. After perhaps 45 minutes or an hour, a thought arose followed by two or three other thoughts. With the arising of thoughts, the state of total unity began to dissipate, and I once again became conscious of the body. It felt as if the body were thawing out, and when I attempted to turn my head, it felt as if it were moving in extremely slow motion. I had no idea what had happened, but I knew that selfhood had somehow disappeared, and that I had entered some sort of extremely deep and unusual state. This happened three nights in a row, and on the fourth day I had a mind-blowing cosmic consciousness experience. It would be several more years before I once again entered this kind of Samadhi. I subsequently became curious about it, and began to experiment with entry into that state and what is required to remain in that state. The key seems to be intense one-pointed concentration and focus. In the following years I could enter Samadhi by listening to universal sound and also by listening to other sounds, such as the hissing of some gas logs in a fireplace. More later.....gotta go to dinner now. Thanks for sharing zd. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 22:14:08 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. Your understanding is perfect! Just one thing. What has been translated as I-I from Ramana's various works is a literal translation from the Tamil of I am I. In Tamil the verb am is not written but merely implied so it was given a literal translation into English as I-I. This helps to clarify what Ramana meant by the real I. Totally agree that the I am sense that Nisargadatta spoke about is a gateway to dissolution of the I. That I is an object and is not real. By inquiring into that false I, it dissolves and reveals the real I which is unbounded and transcendent. That is no different from the self inquiry of Ramana when you turn back to the source of I. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 23:30:51 GMT -5
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. Your understanding is perfect! Just one thing. What has been translated as I-I from Ramana's various works is a literal translation from the Tamil of I am I. In Tamil the verb am is not written but merely implied so it was given a literal translation into English as I-I. This helps to clarify what Ramana meant by the real I. Totally agree that the I am sense that Nisargadatta spoke about is a gateway to dissolution of the I. That I is an object and is not real. By inquiring into that false I, it dissolves and reveals the real I which is unbounded and transcendent. That is no different from the self inquiry of Ramana when you turn back to the source of I. Yes. Agreed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 23:36:09 GMT -5
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. Your understanding is perfect! Just one thing. What has been translated as I-I from Ramana's various works is a literal translation from the Tamil of I am I. In Tamil the verb am is not written but merely implied so it was given a literal translation into English as I-I. This helps to clarify what Ramana meant by the real I. Totally agree that the I am sense that Nisargadatta spoke about is a gateway to dissolution of the I. That I is an object and is not real. By inquiring into that false I, it dissolves and reveals the real I which is unbounded and transcendent. That is no different from the self inquiry of Ramana when you turn back to the source of I. See you now have 3 pretty good folks all agreeing, you know NIz correctly It's not a easy thang for most  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 0:05:52 GMT -5
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. I can't respond properly on my phone, so that will have to wait until tomorrow. But your post made me think of the famous Zen story. Student was meditating one day. Master sees through the whole matter, asks student what he is doing. Student says, meditating..to become enlightened. So then master picks up two pieces of tile and begins to rub them together. Student asks, what are you doing master? Master says, I'm making a mirror. And student exclaims. Master! You will never! make a mirror in such a manner! Then master says, and you will never become enlightened by meditating in such a manner. Zero "progress" comes from thinking in any manner. Thinking is like rubbing two bricks together to make a mirror. I don't care how you treat the words, you answer to me not in any manner. But I would hope you cared. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 8, 2017 2:38:58 GMT -5
I don't get what all the fuss about awareness and identification is all about, actually. It's about Love. Why is that so hard to understand? Who cares about all those definitions and such? Really. It's that simple. That's true, but it brings up the question, "what is love?" And, how does love relate to identification? Even in the inverse sense of, the less identification, the more love. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 8, 2017 2:45:55 GMT -5
I can't respond properly on my phone, so that will have to wait until tomorrow. But your post made me think of the famous Zen story. Student was meditating one day. Master sees through the whole matter, asks student what he is doing. Student says, meditating..to become enlightened. So then master picks up two pieces of tile and begins to rub them together. Student asks, what are you doing master? Master says, I'm making a mirror. And student exclaims. Master! You will never! make a mirror in such a manner! Then master says, and you will never become enlightened by meditating in such a manner. Zero "progress" comes from thinking in any manner. Thinking is like rubbing two bricks together to make a mirror. I don't care how you treat the words, you answer to me not in any manner. But I would hope you cared. Well, it's a good thing I don't meditate to become enlightened then. As it happens, I only discover that I'm meditating after it's already been going on. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 8, 2017 2:49:40 GMT -5
It's not a easy thang for most That's very kind of all of you. Way more than I was expecting. Thanks so much. Also good to have some dissent from that opinion, in the form of stardustpilgrim's views. Gotta keep me on my toes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 10:11:55 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]. sdp in blue. 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. I was only discussing the middle paragraph of the earlier post, the really only issue, the I-thought.The quote you give here fully supports what I said. "I am" to Nisargadatta is the gateway to the source of the "I am". But you have to know what 'I am' refers to.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 words 'I am' refer to "our sense of being". Of course not the Absolute, you generally have to crawl before you can walk. The ( false) feeling of being "I" is like the snake that our minds have overlaid on the non-dual rope. From the ( false sense of) "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". ( Yes). By doing this, we are able to feel past the ( false sense of) "I am" to the inherent, natural bliss at the very heart of our being. ( Yes, essentially). 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. ( Same place, yes, but "miles" apart). The rope is the ~real~ sense of being, the snake is the false sense of being.Nisargadatta does not refer to the "I am" as being the goal, only the method. ( I would say it is the "door" one ~must~ walk through, if you know what 'I am' refers to). [ Next comment is one this and following].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". (Here I would refer to the earlier quote. A man (at this point) doesn't know what he is. It is enough to know what he isn't. Again, you have to crawl before you can walk. Some things [the further on stuff] either can't be talked about, described, or you don't wish to talk about It). 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. ( Yes, but you can't jump to the "second door" without going through the first door. But of course that is a general 'rule' and not a 'set in concrete' rule). 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. It's been probably 20 years since I read Ramana much, but I came to him, one could kind-of say, not as a virgin.I'll see if I can find the time to locate some quotes for you later. Hope this isn't too frustrating for you. If you think I am misreading you and Niz, you didn't understand anything I said.Will add some commenting on your other post. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 10:25:36 GMT -5
I don't get what all the fuss about awareness and identification is all about, actually. It's about Love. Why is that so hard to understand? Who cares about all those definitions and such? Really. It's that simple. But love is sometimes difficult to separate from self-love. Most love we know/experience in the world is self-love. When a cat rubs up against your leg, is it giving you affection? No, it is scratching its own back. When one is identified, that is'can be only self-love, and we don't even realize this. People can become doctors and climb mountains and become a soldier because 'they are identified' with something 'put into them' from their parents, they can become a Major League athlete. And then one day they might suddenly realize, I'd rather be doing something else, I don't really want to be a doctor or lawyer or whatever. Identification is identification with a false sense of self. Awareness always is a very-real-thing. Awareness would be awareness of-the-false (for one thing). One is-not-identified when one is in-awareness. It's almost like walking through a door, one side of the door, identified, the other side of the door, not-identified. Identified side, you ~feel~ compulsion, I have to do this, that. Awareness side, you feel free, alive, no compulsion. Angst, discomfort, a general sense of dis-ease, always in the background, dukkha, functions like pain in the body, it tells you something is wrong (in a "psychological" sense). But it doesn't tell you how to fix it. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 10:27:34 GMT -5
I don't get what all the fuss about awareness and identification is all about, actually. It's about Love. Why is that so hard to understand? Who cares about all those definitions and such? Really. It's that simple. That's true, but it brings up the question, " what is love?" And, how does love relate to identification? Even in the inverse sense of, the less identification, the more love. You might want to look at what I wrote some years back, Conradg: Aspects of the Divine (LOVE):When “I” assumes a body it comes with certain aspects, with certain qualities which this particular “I” represents. This “container” or “seed” or “basket” one can call the soul of this particular embodiement. A soul comes with a purpose always. The first purpose is to remember its purpose. The second is to fullfill the purpose. If someone do not know himself his or her life is wasted untill the embodied “I” remembers its purpose. Every voice that proclaims that there is no purpose in life is a demon. A demon is a spirit that has the purpose to negate and to destroy life. If someone admits he or she do not know now why and what for he or she is here, in this realm, there is a way, a method, a means for this particular embodiement to discover it. The constant and forcefull announcement that there is no meaning and no purpose in life comes from a demon spirit only. This is to recognize for everybody who is searching for truth. Aspects of the Divine (LOVE): (The order in which it appears has no meaning) 1. Humor 2. Integrity 3. Dignity 4. Honesty 5. Kindness 6. Tenderness 7. Courage 8. Wisdom 9. Compassion 10. Willpower 11. Creativity 12. Devotion (Bhakti – devotion for the Divine most High) 13. Feeling 14. Faith 15. Hope 16. Intelligence 17. Humbleness 18. Consideration 19. Genuineness 20. Passion (for Truth) 21. Sacrifice 22. Enthusiasm 23. Sobriety 24. Ecstasy capability 25. Attentiveness 26. Respectability 27. Care 28. Beauty 29. Goodness 30. Power 31. Joy 32. Serenity 33. Fearlessness 34. Righteousness 35. Strength 36. Sensibility 37. Perfection 38. Justice 39. Contentment 40. Style 41. Patience 42. Grace 43. Peacefullness 44. Endurance 45. Forgivness 46. Fighting spirit 47. Authority 48. One HAND clapping  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 11:08:05 GMT -5
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. [ The attributions got all messed up, but I'll just start here. The 'I am' is not a thought. The words I am represent 'I am'. So any word can only be but a reminder of _ __ (as ZD might would say). Any word, any "mantra" is but a reminder for something else]. "Being here now" means observing deep within oneself this whole process of the being that has produced the illusion of self. [ No, Being, here, now is much simpler than that. It's crawling before you walk]. 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. [ Correct, if you take 'I am' to be-the-words I am. But if you know what the words refer to, you are almost very nearly AT non-dual. The example has been given, where exactly is your wrist? Can you point to the exact place your arm stops and your wrist begins? No, wrist is an abstraction. It's kind-of like that. It's kind-of like your snake and rope example, they are one-and-the-same, but yet they are not-the-same. Thinking, any thought, never gets you to ~the actual~ 'I am'. So when Niz says, stay in the 'I am', he doesn't mean the words I am. He gave the example of waking up in the morning, what is-there-first? There is usually something there, before any thought. That's what Niz means by 'I am']. 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. [ Again, I would say 'I am' is a kind-of door. It ~touches~ both sides (two rooms), the dual and the non-dual. And yes, that is the traditional meaning of Maya. But again, crawl before walk]. "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. [ No, no, no, no, no. Yes, the words I am are clearly just a thought. But they refer to that which is not a thought, they refer to being. That's the whole point of spiritual practice. No amount of thoughts "stacked up" will ever reach "heaven". That's pointed out in the Zen story I gave last night. Master was teaching student he-was-doing-it wrong. He was mistaking the finger for the moon. Student was trying to make a 'mirror' from rubbing two bricks together. As J Krishnamurti said over and over, the word is not the thing. Word are never the thing. When you take 'I am' to-be words, then you are eating the menu]. 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. [ But there is a ~link~. If you are walking west, to walk east you don't have to do anything except ~turn around~. The 'I am' is this turning around, you don't have to go-anywhere]. There's a reason why Ramana always refers to the "I"-thought. You want to tell him to stop doing that? You referenced Niz with the I-thought in the earlier post. As I said, I haven't read much Ramana in probably 20 years. So I don't know specifically, but I would bet everything I have said also is meaningful for the use of I-thought by Ramana. No, I wouldn't try to change the words of any Sage, but I'd try to understand what the words refer to. "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. But you have to make this distinction between a false sense of self, equating the I-thought with the false versus the actual sense-of-being. 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. [ No, no, no, no, no! You must say, what the I-thought refers to. If you stay merely with any thought, then you will always only-be with thinking. Niz is pointing beyond thinking]. That's what Ramana and Niz are both recommending. [ No!, it's not!]. 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. [ No, if you stay only with the actual thought/words I am, you will NEVER get to what they refer to, the door, and the ~other side~ of the door You will always only be eating the menu.]. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 11:14:38 GMT -5
I've doing zazen for 30 years. Never experienced this. There were times when I would get disoriented and forget who or what I was. The shadows through the half open eyes would start to become things I was unfamiliar with, but I'd snap out of it quickly before anything else happened, back to the breath. Sense I warned against this kind of experience. Some in the zendo would even hallucinate. He encouraged us to ignore this and return to the breath. This was a Soto zendo. When I used to practice zazen, the eyes were half open, unfocused, and pointed downward at about a 45 degree angle. When I was focused on following the breath, for example, I would be so focused on the breathing process that nothing was seen through the eyes. The first time I entered deep Samadhi I had no idea what was happening. I had been doing a breath following exercise, and then I shifted to feeling the breathing process. As I concentrated more and more strongly on feeling what was happening, breathing slowed down and a subtle shift occurred into BEING the breath rather than FEELING the breath. As this happened, I was vaguely aware of a skin surface numbness that started on the backs of my hands and began to spread up my arms to my shoulders and ultimately to the forehead. Some Zen people call this "off sensation." Coupled with the off sensation was a strange sense of everything solidifying into a state of unity. It's hard to describe, but selfhood soon disappeared and there was no longer an observer separate from what was happening. A few random thoughts were still arising, but it felt like awareness or consciousness was being pulled inward. I sometimes describe it as if one has gotten onto an elevator in the mind and descended into the depths of being. As thoughts came to an end, everything just went deeper and deeper until finally nothing remained other than a crystalline blissful state of pure awareness. The body was initially like a frozen block of ice, but eventually there was no sense of even having a body. I've also described it as if awareness has sunk to the bottom of deep sea and remained there motionless. After perhaps 45 minutes or an hour, a thought arose followed by two or three other thoughts. With the arising of thoughts, the state of total unity began to dissipate, and I once again became conscious of the body. It felt as if the body were thawing out, and when I attempted to turn my head, it felt as if it were moving in extremely slow motion. I had no idea what had happened, but I knew that selfhood had somehow disappeared, and that I had entered some sort of extremely deep and unusual state. This happened three nights in a row, and on the fourth day I had a mind-blowing cosmic consciousness experience. It would be several more years before I once again entered this kind of Samadhi. I subsequently became curious about it, and began to experiment with entry into that state and what is required to remain in that state. The key seems to be intense one-pointed concentration and focus. In the following years I could enter Samadhi by listening to universal sound and also by listening to other sounds, such as the hissing of some gas logs in a fireplace. More later.....gotta go to dinner now. (Reading in order). But again, to clarify, no cold to the "frozen". (?) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 11:22:16 GMT -5
Awareness during sleep is a "test" for ~having something~ which can survive the death of the physical body. IOW, if you cannot ~survive~ sleep, you cannot survive the death of the physical body (that is, consciously). Alternatively, if you can be aware during the body sleeping, maybe there is something present that will survive death. Says who? Being aware during deep sleep may or may not be like being aware when and after the body dies. As far as I know there is no verification one way or the other. OBEs are close though. Though all those witnesses survived to tell about it. What we need is Houdini's quest of afterlife testimony. And there is lots of those, but hard to believe. There are few reports from the afterlife because personality doesn't survive death (at least very long, and time is different, after death). The Tibetan Buddhism Bardo explains why (The Tibetan Book of the Dead, a popular but not-so accurate or well liked name by T. Buddhist). Says who? This is knowledge from the Gurdjieff tradition. (He maintained we do not have a soul that survives the death of the body. We have only the possibility of something surviving). |
|
