lee
New Member
Posts: 31 
|
Post by lee on Nov 29, 2017 20:25:52 GMT -5
Yes, that final realization!! Thanks for sharing that  I am however hesitant in using the words “final”, “complete” or “full” when it comes to realization or enlightenment, for evolution is a never-ending journey and there is always further room for growth. Depending on what you mean by “egoic”, I’m actually not against enjoying the worldly life. As Tilopa said: “The problem is not enjoyment; the problem is attachment.” For instance, I enjoy having dinner with my girlfriend but sometimes she has to work late and we have to postpone our dinner date, but I’m not upset, disappointed or angry, ie, I do not suffer, but I still in my heart have the wish or desire to meet her. So we can have wishes, desires, goals but still not suffer even when we do not succeed in fulfilling them. When we’ve stopped enjoying the worldly life, then we’ve become attached to non-attachment (or emptiness) and may have even developed a fear of attachment. True non-attachment is when we are not attached to attachment nor non-attachment. We can remain in the Absolute even when we are enjoying the worldly life, for the Absolute can be found in anything and everything, in joy and in pain. When laughing, just laugh. When having sex, just have sex. When crying, just cry. So I guess this is my key issue: are we not in the Absolute at all times, no matter what? Why would it be dependent on "just laughing" or "just" doing anything? Even if, when we are crying, we are thinking of the past or the future -- is that not happening in the Absolute? Yes indeed, the Absolute isn't "dependent on", it IS laughing, doing, crying, past, present, future. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 29, 2017 20:28:55 GMT -5
Yes, I agree about the end point. One of the differences I was thinking of is how science is always focused outward, on an objective metric. Neti-neti involves attention that can focus either outwardly or inwardly, and the latter, of course, is where the money shot eventually lies. Those good scientists with the open minds are responding to the Universe as it appears: constantly changing and of a scope beyond imagination. This "not-knowing" strikes me as similar to what the Zen guys talk about in that we could characterize it with some aphorism like "the only known that never varies is that there is the unknown". Materially speaking this is can mark a genuinely open perspective. The business of science is likely to continue long into the foreseeable future. But even those good guys aren't in the free fall of neti-neti. That "not-knowing" is similar, but not the same. The conceptual structures they build become unassailable precisely because they've survived the scrutiny. Do you know any educated atheist who really thinks of evolution as a "theory"? Now, I'm not suggesting that there's some viable alternative to Darwin, but I am suggesting that the rational worldview of a scientist is a perfect set-up for a sense of identity based on the assumption of realism that is so deep in their psyche as to have an unquestionable component, whether they're conscious of that or not. They wouldn't have to allow for the possibility of a flat Earth to become conscious of that assumption, but they would have to see the perspective of the Solar System as Sun-centric for what it is.  You may like to listen to that convo between Sam Harris and Thomas Metzinger. Both scientists, both atheists, both long term meditators having seen through selfhood. I'd think they'd agree that theory/law is part of the conceptual overlay/narrative that includes self, but I'm not sure. Some narratives are better than others, basically. One of Harris' projects is to help foster a 'spirituality' for the nonreligious. I don’t know Metzinger, but I wouldn’t reccomend Harris. He seems very unclear to me. The book that a friend showed me two days ago was a nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 29, 2017 20:29:28 GMT -5
So I guess this is my key issue: are we not in the Absolute at all times, no matter what? Why would it be dependent on "just laughing" or "just" doing anything? Even if, when we are crying, we are thinking of the past or the future -- is that not happening in the Absolute? Yes indeed, the Absolute isn't "dependent on", it IS laughing, doing, crying, past, present, future. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 29, 2017 20:42:18 GMT -5
You may like to listen to that convo between Sam Harris and Thomas Metzinger. Both scientists, both atheists, both long term meditators having seen through selfhood. I'd think they'd agree that theory/law is part of the conceptual overlay/narrative that includes self, but I'm not sure. Some narratives are better than others, basically. One of Harris' projects is to help foster a 'spirituality' for the nonreligious. I don’t know Metzinger, but I wouldn’t reccomend Harris. He seems very unclear to me. The book that a friend showed me two days ago was a nonsense. I've found that sometimes attachment to certain cultures can obscure a peeps deep existential insight, but that if allowances are made in translation it can come through. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 29, 2017 21:14:18 GMT -5
So I guess this is my key issue: are we not in the Absolute at all times, no matter what? Why would it be dependent on "just laughing" or "just" doing anything? Even if, when we are crying, we are thinking of the past or the future -- is that not happening in the Absolute? Absolutely! Haha. Going to the grocery store is the Absolute going to the grocery store. Same same with everything else. FWIW there’s no one “in” the Absolute. The Absolute is all there is. Seeing this clearly is what SR is all about. From my dialogs on this forum I find that that point to be subtle and surprisingly deep water, rocket fuel for a hypermind, and what Low was referring to with his refrain of "in seeing/saying 'One', there are two". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 29, 2017 21:31:28 GMT -5
The possibility of a relatively greater freedom from suffering is commonly available to most human beings, regardless of SR. What thought is nondual? What thought is absolute? Yes, how much suffering we have boils down to how much attachment we still have, and SR is just one of the many tools that can help us find non-attachment and therefore non-suffering. One thing though in SR and Self-Actualization (SA) -- that is perhaps absent from most other paths/methods -- is that we go into an absolute state of bliss and to say it is "freedom from suffering" becomes quite an understatement. That said, although I have't tried all the paths/methods myself, it is fair to infer that most of them will eventually lead to SR and SA. Thoughts are nondual/absolute when they happen while we are immersed or abiding in the Absolute. Put another way, they are non-attachment thinking as opposed to attachment thinking, hence the freedom from suffering. For this to happen, what we really require is not so much SR but SA, especially if SR happened a while ago and has become merely a memory rather than a day-to-day / moment-to-moment reality. As the saying goes, it is easy to attain enlightenment but not so easy to maintain it. Just to clarify that I am not referring to the Maslow kind of SA (although it can include that as well) but one that is in the words of RM, "perpetual abidance in Brahman, the Absolute." The drag of attachments cause pain, the suffering is optional. I'm attached enough to my car to abide by all the laws necessary to keep it on the road. A life truly rift of all attachment would be similar to a life devoid of all emotion. No rules apply to the absence of limitation that is freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 29, 2017 21:58:40 GMT -5
Some of what Maharshi and Nisargardatta said on the topic of reincarnation is quite startling given their native cultural context. Are you familiar with Maharshi's awakening story? Have you ever noticed the Hindu influence on the New-Age culture? Thanks for bringing this up. Just had time to read/re-read a little on what they said about reincarnation/rebirth. Seems to me their views are quite buddhist-like. Not sure if they got it from Buddhism or it's their own authentic truth; likely a combination of both. In any case, it can potentially suffer from the same fate as Bertrand Russell's turkey as they were making inference/induction based on what they had experienced/observed about energy, awareness and consciousness in their present life, as opposed to having personally visited or seen the afterworld / beforeworld. RM’s 'death experience' could just be an OBE or NDE. Had it been a real death, he wouldn’t had been able to come back. In fact, many who have had NDE reported meeting their deceased loved ones and even had a life-review with their spirit guide or a being of light during which their whole life flashed before them in an instant, and life lessons and missions were sometimes explained to them so that they could return to hopefully fulfill them. Just because someone is enlightened does not mean they suddenly become all-knowing and all-seeing; they would still have their biases, information gaps (lots of it) and belief system, however subtle. Some of them may not even know how to use a mobile phone or drive a car, let alone know what lies beyond this universe and dimension, and even more so, worlds that are imperceptible/incomprehensible to us. What they had gained is a very specific kind of wisdom, one that pertains to liberation from suffering for a human being. There are many other kinds of wisdom even just on earth alone, such as in science, technology, arts, medicine, relationships, business and politics. But yes, spiritual wisdom, or the ability to tap into the Absolute/Source, is the sweetest kind of wisdom and an excellent foundation for all these other kinds of wisdom. I believe in their enlightenment and thank them for their teachings, but have to disagree with their views on reincarnation. From what I know of Buddhism it's a big enough tent that there are Buddhists on either side of the notion. Fair enough point about NDE's: I can certainly admit that if I'd ever had one that my opinions might be different than they are now. My question here was in part about experiences .. have you had an NDE? The flip side to NDE's is precisely the point that you make about them: near death, isn't death. There is a leap that's different from induction involved in accepting that these experiences apply to an afterlife. As far as I know -- and I sincerely don't mean this flippantly -- noone has ever actually returned from the grave. By the time I'd read what Niz and Marharshi said on the topic my inquiry process was winding down. It's certainly possible that I read it with confirmation bias, but that process involved very intense scrutiny of those particular types of movement of mind. About the only sure commonality in terms of life experience I've found in discussing "life after SR" with others who I believe have found it, is that death is no longer feared. Most of the writing about afterlife that I've encountered seems to me to be driven primarily by that fear, and as Maharishi's story in particular illustrates, becoming conscious of that can be a grand opportunity. Attachment to theories of afterlife will always obscure that opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 29, 2017 22:58:04 GMT -5
So I guess this is my key issue: are we not in the Absolute at all times, no matter what? Why would it be dependent on "just laughing" or "just" doing anything? Even if, when we are crying, we are thinking of the past or the future -- is that not happening in the Absolute? Absolutely! Haha. Going to the grocery store is the Absolute going to the grocery store. Same same with everything else. FWIW there’s no one “in” the Absolute. The Absolute is all there is. Seeing this clearly is what SR is all about. Great, then it seems like you, me, and lee are all in agreement here. I agree that the "in the Absolute" phraseology is inaccurate... but I was just using it to dispute the idea that some people I've encountered seem to have that there is some "non-egoic" way of acting & thinking (which is when the mind would be "merged in the Absolute") as opposed to an "egoic" way of acting & thinking (when it wouldn't be). I disagree, and, unless I've misinterpreted, it sounds like you and lee do too. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 30, 2017 0:01:49 GMT -5
I don’t know Metzinger, but I wouldn’t reccomend Harris. He seems very unclear to me. The book that a friend showed me two days ago was a nonsense. I've found that sometimes attachment to certain cultures can obscure a peeps deep existential insight, but that if allowances are made in translation it can come through. Harris is da bomb, man. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 30, 2017 0:02:31 GMT -5
Absolutely! Haha. Going to the grocery store is the Absolute going to the grocery store. Same same with everything else. FWIW there’s no one “in” the Absolute. The Absolute is all there is. Seeing this clearly is what SR is all about. From my dialogs on this forum I find that that point to be subtle and surprisingly deep water, r ocket fuel for a hypermind, and what Low was referring to with his refrain of "in seeing/saying 'One', there are two". I come here every day for a fix. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 30, 2017 4:56:29 GMT -5
Absolutely! Haha. Going to the grocery store is the Absolute going to the grocery store. Same same with everything else. FWIW there’s no one “in” the Absolute. The Absolute is all there is. Seeing this clearly is what SR is all about. Great, then it seems like you, me, and lee are all in agreement here. I agree that the "in the Absolute" phraseology is inaccurate... but I was just using it to dispute the idea that some people I've encountered seem to have that there is some "non-egoic" way of acting & thinking (which is when the mind would be "merged in the Absolute") as opposed to an "egoic" way of acting & thinking (when it wouldn't be). I disagree, and, unless I've misinterpreted, it sounds like you and lee do too. Yes. My last existential question was, “How is it possible to escape selfhood and stay in a unified state of mind permanently?” Haha. It was like asking, “How can I stay in the Absolute permanently?” When the “me” vanished, it became clear that the Absolute is all there is, or ever was, and there was never a separate entity seeing, thinking, or doing anything. For peeps who see this there is a spectrum of manifestation from RM types who are drawn to sit in NS for years on end to peeps who are drawn to stay fully engaged in a myriad of worldly activities. The Absolute plays every role, and it’s all absolutely perfect. 😁 |
|
lee
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by lee on Nov 30, 2017 9:51:14 GMT -5
Thanks for bringing this up. Just had time to read/re-read a little on what they said about reincarnation/rebirth. Seems to me their views are quite buddhist-like. Not sure if they got it from Buddhism or it's their own authentic truth; likely a combination of both. In any case, it can potentially suffer from the same fate as Bertrand Russell's turkey as they were making inference/induction based on what they had experienced/observed about energy, awareness and consciousness in their present life, as opposed to having personally visited or seen the afterworld / beforeworld. RM’s 'death experience' could just be an OBE or NDE. Had it been a real death, he wouldn’t had been able to come back. In fact, many who have had NDE reported meeting their deceased loved ones and even had a life-review with their spirit guide or a being of light during which their whole life flashed before them in an instant, and life lessons and missions were sometimes explained to them so that they could return to hopefully fulfill them. Just because someone is enlightened does not mean they suddenly become all-knowing and all-seeing; they would still have their biases, information gaps (lots of it) and belief system, however subtle. Some of them may not even know how to use a mobile phone or drive a car, let alone know what lies beyond this universe and dimension, and even more so, worlds that are imperceptible/incomprehensible to us. What they had gained is a very specific kind of wisdom, one that pertains to liberation from suffering for a human being. There are many other kinds of wisdom even just on earth alone, such as in science, technology, arts, medicine, relationships, business and politics. But yes, spiritual wisdom, or the ability to tap into the Absolute/Source, is the sweetest kind of wisdom and an excellent foundation for all these other kinds of wisdom. I believe in their enlightenment and thank them for their teachings, but have to disagree with their views on reincarnation. From what I know of Buddhism it's a big enough tent that there are Buddhists on either side of the notion. Fair enough point about NDE's: I can certainly admit that if I'd ever had one that my opinions might be different than they are now. My question here was in part about experiences .. have you had an NDE? The flip side to NDE's is precisely the point that you make about them: near death, isn't death. There is a leap that's different from induction involved in accepting that these experiences apply to an afterlife. As far as I know -- and I sincerely don't mean this flippantly -- noone has ever actually returned from the grave. By the time I'd read what Niz and Marharshi said on the topic my inquiry process was winding down. It's certainly possible that I read it with confirmation bias, but that process involved very intense scrutiny of those particular types of movement of mind. About the only sure commonality in terms of life experience I've found in discussing "life after SR" with others who I believe have found it, is that death is no longer feared. Most of the writing about afterlife that I've encountered seems to me to be driven primarily by that fear, and as Maharishi's story in particular illustrates, becoming conscious of that can be a grand opportunity. Attachment to theories of afterlife will always obscure that opportunity. Yes, NDEs are subject to the same induction problem. Never had an NDE. Had a very brief OBE many years ago. Agree that beliefs about afterlife can be driven by fear and can also be a distraction. So I can appreciate why many a time Buddha, RM & Niz refrained from dwelling on the afterlife despite there understandably having so many questions about it. We all have a belief system, whether we like it or not, conscious of it or not, because there is just too much unknown. Whether it is agnosticism, theism, atheism or something else, it is still a belief system. And we all choose a belief system using both our intellect and intuition, whether we are aware of it or not. At the moment, most people are using much more intellect than intuition, partly because our education systems have been focusing on developing the intellect and have neglected intuition. Although the hitherto unknown is unknowable to our intellect, it is knowable to our intuition -- not all of it but at least some of it. So the more we use our intuition -- which does require a fair amount of alignment with the Absolute/Source, the more we are able to make a better-informed decision as to what to believe regarding the unknown. By intuition I mean the feeling we have about something or a knowing/awareness that happens spontaneously. Or both -- sometimes we need to use our feeling to verify and validate our knowing/awareness. Not sure if you buy this intuition stuff but I'm sure you are drawn to Niz & RM (and this forum) not purely because of what you think but also what you intuitively know and feel. So end of the day, given that there is so much unknown, we just have to go with whatever (afterlife or no-afterlife perspective) that resonates for us and feel drawn to. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 30, 2017 9:52:13 GMT -5
You may like to listen to that convo between Sam Harris and Thomas Metzinger. Both scientists, both atheists, both long term meditators having seen through selfhood. I'd think they'd agree that theory/law is part of the conceptual overlay/narrative that includes self, but I'm not sure. Some narratives are better than others, basically. One of Harris' projects is to help foster a 'spirituality' for the nonreligious. I don’t know Metzinger, but I wouldn’t reccomend Harris. He seems very unclear to me. The book that a friend showed me two days ago was a nonsense. Which book was it? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 30, 2017 9:55:02 GMT -5
I've found that sometimes attachment to certain cultures can obscure a peeps deep existential insight, but that if allowances are made in translation it can come through. Harris is da bomb, man. I mainly appreciate his perseverance and dedication to wading around in controversy attempting reason and rationality. It's a noble project, IMO. I find it easy to admire that approach even if I dislike many of his views. |
|
lee
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by lee on Nov 30, 2017 9:58:01 GMT -5
Great, then it seems like you, me, and lee are all in agreement here. I agree that the "in the Absolute" phraseology is inaccurate... but I was just using it to dispute the idea that some people I've encountered seem to have that there is some "non-egoic" way of acting & thinking (which is when the mind would be "merged in the Absolute") as opposed to an "egoic" way of acting & thinking (when it wouldn't be). I disagree, and, unless I've misinterpreted, it sounds like you and lee do too. Yes. My last existential question was, “How is it possible to escape selfhood and stay in a unified state of mind permanently?” Haha. It was like asking, “How can I stay in the Absolute permanently?” When the “me” vanished, it became clear that the Absolute is all there is, or ever was, and there was never a separate entity seeing, thinking, or doing anything. For peeps who see this there is a spectrum of manifestation from RM types who are drawn to sit in NS for years on end to peeps who are drawn to stay fully engaged in a myriad of worldly activities. The Absolute plays every role, and it’s all absolutely perfect. 😁 Well said!! |
|
