|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 8, 2017 11:24:12 GMT -5
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). Yea but where did G's claim come from? This is all religious speculation to bolster a theory/model. May or may not be true. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 11:38:33 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. I'm not trying to make this a pissing contest, I'm just trying to clarify. Does my further explanation (if you happened to read it, two posts) clarify anything? Agree, with the above. "an object and is not real" is what I called the false sense of self. But I was also trying to point out that self-inquiry, is not thinking. Of course there will be thinking in the beginning, but thinking is-not-the-point. self-inquiry is ~walking up to the "door"~ (thinking, pondering), but then leaving thought behind (leaving the I-thought behind), and finding what the words refer-to (being), and then ~walking through the door~. I would guess the implied Tamil is for the every purposes of indicating 'I am' does not refer to the words, but to what the words refer to (the actual sense of being). ["This helps to clarify what Ramana meant by real I"]. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 8, 2017 11:41:00 GMT -5
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". (?) In my case there was almost always a distinct feeling of coolness associated with NS, but not cold. By "frozen" I meant that the body seems to become unitized and immobile as consciousness sinks "within." I don't know how else to describe it, but proprioceptive feedback from the body gradually ceases, and one eventually becomes completely unaware of it. As noted before, breathing is diaphragmatic, and it slows down until it almost seems to stop. That's one of the last things that's noticed before sensory perception ceases. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 11:41:08 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. 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. I said my bit on Love for today, Studdy. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 11:43:20 GMT -5
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). Yea but where did G's claim come from? This is all religious speculation to bolster a theory/model. May or may not be true. There is philosophy, theory and practice and results from practice, IOW direct experience. Gurdjieff did not teach anything he did not have direct experience of. Today's knowledge-understanding-experience was once theory-practice. And as I have said once or twice, First you have to row a little boat. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 11:44:16 GMT -5
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. I'm not trying to make this a pissing contest, I'm just trying to clarify. Does my further explanation (if you happened to read it, two posts) clarify anything? Agree, with the above. "an object and is not real" is what I called the false sense of self. But I was also trying to point out that self-inquiry, is not thinking. Of course there will be thinking in the beginning, but thinking is-not-the-point. self-inquiry is ~walking up to the "door"~ (thinking, pondering), but then leaving thought behind (leaving the I-thought behind), and finding what the words refer-to (being), and then ~walking through the door~. I would guess the implied Tamil is for the every purposes of indicating 'I am' does not refer to the words, but to what the words refer to (the actual sense of being). ["This helps to clarify what Ramana meant by real I"]. Does that make sense? I'm by no means a Ramana Maharshi expert, scholar, so I can't comment on anything regarding him and his teachings. I have not studied his works and teachings suffieciently enough myself, but I have a pic of him on my wall here. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 11:45:01 GMT -5
Yea but where did G's claim come from? This is all religious speculation to bolster a theory/model. May or may not be true. There is philosophy, theory and practice and results from practice, IOW direct experience. Gurdjieff did not teach anything he did not have direct experience of. Today's knowledge-understanding-experience was once theory-practice. And as I have said once or twice, First you have to row a little boat. I only care for Love. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 11:47:56 GMT -5
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. I'm not trying to make this a pissing contest, I'm just trying to clarify. Does my further explanation (if you happened to read it, two posts) clarify anything? Agree, with the above. "an object and is not real" is what I called the false sense of self. But I was also trying to point out that self-inquiry, is not thinking. Of course there will be thinking in the beginning, but thinking is-not-the-point. self-inquiry is ~walking up to the "door"~ (thinking, pondering), but then leaving thought behind (leaving the I-thought behind), and finding what the words refer-to (being), and then ~walking through the door~. I would guess the implied Tamil is for the every purposes of indicating 'I am' does not refer to the words, but to what the words refer to (the actual sense of being). ["This helps to clarify what Ramana meant by real I"]. Does that make sense? Yes, self inquiry is not thinking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2017 11:54:39 GMT -5
(Reading in order). But again, to clarify, no cold to the "frozen". (?) In my case there was almost always a distinct feeling of coolness associated with NS, but not cold. By "frozen" I meant that the body seems to become unitized and immobile as consciousness sinks "within." I don't know how else to describe it, but proprioceptive feedback from the body gradually ceases, and one eventually becomes completely unaware of it. As noted before, breathing is diaphragmatic, and it slows down until it almost seems to stop. That's one of the last things that's noticed before sensory perception ceases. Agree. Breath becoming very shallow and even stopping for long periods is absolutely indicative of one pointedness of mind. When I teach meditation, people often freak out a bit when breathing slows down like this until they get used to it. It's one of the standard feedback questions I ask during teaching. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 11:55:35 GMT -5
In my case there was almost always a distinct feeling of coolness associated with NS, but not cold. By "frozen" I meant that the body seems to become unitized and immobile as consciousness sinks "within." I don't know how else to describe it, but proprioceptive feedback from the body gradually ceases, and one eventually becomes completely unaware of it. As noted before, breathing is diaphragmatic, and it slows down until it almost seems to stop. That's one of the last things that's noticed before sensory perception ceases. Agree. Breath becoming very shallow and even stopping for long periods is absolutely indicative of one pointedness of mind. When I teach meditation, people often freak out a bit when breathing slows down like this until they get used to it. It's one of the standard feedback questions I ask during teaching. Who/what am I? And: What do I want? |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 12:00:04 GMT -5
In my case there was almost always a distinct feeling of coolness associated with NS, but not cold. By "frozen" I meant that the body seems to become unitized and immobile as consciousness sinks "within." I don't know how else to describe it, but proprioceptive feedback from the body gradually ceases, and one eventually becomes completely unaware of it. As noted before, breathing is diaphragmatic, and it slows down until it almost seems to stop. That's one of the last things that's noticed before sensory perception ceases. OK, thanks. You know what crystallization is? Like ~that~? But this is something I do not wish to write/talk directly about, so a one-sided conversation is probably unfair. But I would be exceptionally interested if this is discussed anywhere in the Zen literature (I have seen it in only one place, not Zen, not any Gurdjieff literature). Yes, understand. But, without saying more, this is where I understand Dogen saying: Practice IS enlightenment (and, enlightenment IS practice). One other word I have used here without explanation: unmistakable. Who/what am I? And: What do I want? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:00:38 GMT -5
I'm not trying to make this a pissing contest, I'm just trying to clarify. Does my further explanation (if you happened to read it, two posts) clarify anything? Agree, with the above. "an object and is not real" is what I called the false sense of self. But I was also trying to point out that self-inquiry, is not thinking. Of course there will be thinking in the beginning, but thinking is-not-the-point. self-inquiry is ~walking up to the "door"~ (thinking, pondering), but then leaving thought behind (leaving the I-thought behind), and finding what the words refer-to (being), and then ~walking through the door~. I would guess the implied Tamil is for the every purposes of indicating 'I am' does not refer to the words, but to what the words refer to (the actual sense of being). ["This helps to clarify what Ramana meant by real I"]. Does that make sense? I'm by no means a Ramana Maharshi expert, scholar, so I can't comment on anything regarding him and his teachings. I have not studied his works and teachings suffieciently enough myself, but I have a pic of him on my wall here. Well, nobody can go wrong with: Who am I? (It is almost bottomless). |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 12:01:39 GMT -5
I'm by no means a Ramana Maharshi expert, scholar, so I can't comment on anything regarding him and his teachings. I have not studied his works and teachings suffieciently enough myself, but I have a pic of him on my wall here. Well, nobody can go wrong with: Who am I? Simple question, simple answer, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 8, 2017 12:02:25 GMT -5
Who/what am I?
And:
What do I want?
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2017 12:04:32 GMT -5
OK, thanks. You know what crystallization is? Like ~that~? But this is something I do not wish to write/talk directly about, so a one-sided conversation is probably unfair. But I would be exceptionally interested if this is discussed anywhere in the Zen literature (I have seen it in only one place, not Zen, not any Gurdjieff literature). Yes, understand. But, without saying more, this is where I understand Dogen saying: Practice IS enlightenment (and, enlightenment IS practice). One other word I have used here without explanation: unmistakable. Who/what am I? And: What do I want? Yes, these are very good questions, foundational questions, imperative questions, obligatory questions, (but not exactly directly related to the posts). |
|
