|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2017 11:54:56 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. 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'. Yes, it is an important discussion. (Just ask maxdp, for one). 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). 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. It's just words. Yes, agree. But my point is, why use the phrase I-thought to refer to something that isn't thought? It's misleading. (Explained a little further in post above). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2017 11:57:59 GMT -5
Being isn't gone, but awareness of being can be gone. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 12:01:30 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. Purpose is kind of heavy isn't it? ZD often refers to 'do what's next 100%' -- sounds like what you are saying too. But purpose could be a mind game, eh? APE is saying the same thing. Purpose COULD become a mind game, but what we're pointing to is not. One knows what to do at all times without ever thinking the word "purpose" or thinking ABOUT the idea of purpose. If you need to go to the bathroom, you don't need to entertain any mind chatter regarding what to do. The body acts, and the mind does not need to think about the action. ITSW, if the mind is quiescent, all of life can flow exactly like that. In mental silence the body will respond to the world intelligently because it's one-with the world. Reflective thought is the only thing that divides reality and makes people think that separateness exists. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 12:16:11 GMT -5
So you agree with me. I am is the sense of Being. We are not talking about thinking of Being. Some people prefer to call it the primordial I that's all. It's just words. Yes, agree. But my point is, why use the phrase I-thought to refer to something that isn't thought? It's misleading. (Explained a little further in post above). Yes I agree it can be misleading. How about I by itself? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 12:18:48 GMT -5
Being isn't gone, but awareness of being can be gone. If there is no awareness that would be sleep or a coma. Samadhi is not blacking out. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 7, 2017 12:19:02 GMT -5
Being isn't gone, but awareness of being can be gone. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 12:20:16 GMT -5
Being isn't gone, but awareness of being can be gone. 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. Okay I agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 7, 2017 12:41:20 GMT -5
You're in good company. (See the OP). But you can explore it just a little bit if you wish to. Just watch the mind in operation. Eventually, you will see a ~*common "denominator"*~. IOW, something the same will always be there, in any case, in all situations. Always, every time. The unborn, or awareness, or openness (Paul Rezendes), or the natural state ... the movement of mind is witnessed or noticed or whatever. But I wouldn't call it mind (unless you go with Mind). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 12:52:35 GMT -5
Being isn't gone, but awareness of being can be gone. 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? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 12:57:20 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? Are you aware during sleep? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 12:59:18 GMT -5
I must be. If I am awareness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:03:21 GMT -5
I must be. If I am awareness. You must be? But that awareness is not brought to the conscious mind in sleep. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:04:28 GMT -5
Just curious. How is it different than deep sleep? Are you aware during sleep? Sorry. If I am awareness then I must be aware in deep sleep. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 13:05:12 GMT -5
Are you aware during sleep? Sorry. If I am awareness then I must be aware in deep sleep. Okay, if you say so. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 7, 2017 13:07:29 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. |
|
