|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 7, 2019 11:36:23 GMT -5
He is asking your SR will remain in your nightly dream. It's perfectly valid question, it definitely wouldn't remain in your nightly sleep. So you don't identify with a body in the waking state, but you do identify with a body in a dream. How's that possible, if you've "seen" through the illusion of being a body? Seeing through the illusion of being a body doesn't mean the permanent end of self-referential movements of mind -- although the experience of a prolonged period of a complete and utter absence of self-referential thought and emotion is not only possible, but cannot fail to result in profound shift in perspective for anyone who's never had it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 11:42:06 GMT -5
So you don't identify with a body in the waking state, but you do identify with a body in a dream. How's that possible, if you've "seen" through the illusion of being a body? Seeing through the illusion of being a body doesn't mean the permanent end of self-referential movements of mind -- although the experience of a prolonged period of a complete and utter absence of self-referential thought and emotion is not only possible, but cannot fail to result in profound shift in perspective for anyone who's never had it. True enough for moi. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 7, 2019 12:19:49 GMT -5
So you don't identify with a body in the waking state, but you do identify with a body in a dream. How's that possible, if you've "seen" through the illusion of being a body? Seeing through the illusion of being a body doesn't mean the permanent end of self-referential movements of mind -- although the experience of a prolonged period of a complete and utter absence of self-referential thought and emotion is not only possible, but cannot fail to result in profound shift in perspective for anyone who's never had it. You've just proved a person gets enlightened. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 7, 2019 16:16:24 GMT -5
Seeing through the illusion of being a body doesn't mean the permanent end of self-referential movements of mind -- although the experience of a prolonged period of a complete and utter absence of self-referential thought and emotion is not only possible, but cannot fail to result in profound shift in perspective for anyone who's never had it. You've just proved a person gets enlightened. You think the "self" in "self-reference" is the same as the "self" in "self-realized"? |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 7, 2019 20:40:09 GMT -5
You've just proved a person gets enlightened. You think the "self" in "self-reference" is the same as the "self" in "self-realized"? No. That's my point. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2019 16:02:31 GMT -5
You think the "self" in "self-reference" is the same as the "self" in "self-realized"? No. That's my point. It's deceptive to the unrealized to focus on the individuated body/mind. Recent history is littered with guru's on ego-trips and the marketplace is crowded with promises that allure the person who wants to accomplish enlightenment. What's realized is that the sense of being a person was an illusion, and, in a very real sense, that "person" is seen to have never existed, in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 8, 2019 18:36:46 GMT -5
It's deceptive to the unrealized to focus on the individuated body/mind. Recent history is littered with guru's on ego-trips and the marketplace is crowded with promises that allure the person who wants to accomplish enlightenment. What's realized is that the sense of being a person was an illusion, and, in a very real sense, that "person" is seen to have never existed, in the first place. Amen and good riddance!  |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 8, 2019 19:33:18 GMT -5
It's deceptive to the unrealized to focus on the individuated body/mind. Recent history is littered with guru's on ego-trips and the marketplace is crowded with promises that allure the person who wants to accomplish enlightenment. What's realized is that the sense of being a person was an illusion, and, in a very real sense, that "person" is seen to have never existed, in the first place. You said that seeing through the illusion of being a body doesn't mean the permanent end of self-referential movements of mind. Well if it doesn't you can't say there is no longer a person. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 8, 2019 19:39:42 GMT -5
It's deceptive to the unrealized to focus on the individuated body/mind. Recent history is littered with guru's on ego-trips and the marketplace is crowded with promises that allure the person who wants to accomplish enlightenment. What's realized is that the sense of being a person was an illusion, and, in a very real sense, that "person" is seen to have never existed, in the first place. Amen and good riddance! That's a very odd thing to say. That you would be contemptuous of the manifestation of the personality that arises within the infinite and which is no different to the infinite because it is just the infinite appearing as the limited. Why have contempt for it? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2019 5:18:50 GMT -5
It's deceptive to the unrealized to focus on the individuated body/mind. Recent history is littered with guru's on ego-trips and the marketplace is crowded with promises that allure the person who wants to accomplish enlightenment. What's realized is that the sense of being a person was an illusion, and, in a very real sense, that "person" is seen to have never existed, in the first place. Amen and good riddance! The cosmic joke is eternally amusing!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2019 5:39:45 GMT -5
It's deceptive to the unrealized to focus on the individuated body/mind. Recent history is littered with guru's on ego-trips and the marketplace is crowded with promises that allure the person who wants to accomplish enlightenment. What's realized is that the sense of being a person was an illusion, and, in a very real sense, that "person" is seen to have never existed, in the first place. You said that seeing through the illusion of being a body doesn't mean the permanent end of self-referential movements of mind. Well if it doesn't you can't say there is no longer a person. The best lies have just enough truth in them to make them believable. The body/mind isn't an illusion, and the thoughts and emotions that occur relative to it are actually happening. The person who conceives a sense of himself relative to what he perceives that he isn't, is another story altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2019 5:40:14 GMT -5
Amen and good riddance! That's a very odd thing to say. That you would be contemptuous of the manifestation of the personality that arises within the infinite and which is no different to the infinite because it is just the infinite appearing as the limited. Why have contempt for it? Didya' notice him kidding me 'bout goin' to church? |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 9, 2019 6:07:27 GMT -5
That's a very odd thing to say. That you would be contemptuous of the manifestation of the personality that arises within the infinite and which is no different to the infinite because it is just the infinite appearing as the limited. Why have contempt for it? Didya' notice him kidding me 'bout goin' to church? I keep getting caught out by zd's sense of humor! |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 9, 2019 6:25:09 GMT -5
You said that seeing through the illusion of being a body doesn't mean the permanent end of self-referential movements of mind. Well if it doesn't you can't say there is no longer a person. . The body/mind isn't an illusion, and the thoughts and emotions that occur relative to it are actually happening. The person who conceives a sense of himself relative to what he perceives that he isn't, is another story altogether. Something similar can be said about humor with respect to audacity, hehe. This post touches on the ideas Sifting and I were tinkering with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 10:13:04 GMT -5
Having read Sifty, Godman and James, regarding Atma Vichara, it is something offered to seekers when understanding the theory of advaita vedanta, as offered on this forum and in satsangs, does not seem to work. Now other similar techniques are offered and discussed on this forum and I appreciate and respect each of them and believe that they can also bring a seeker to the end of seeking and the end of self.
In the beginning of atma vichara, the thought "I am" is juxtaposed with the thought "I am the body" to point to something underlying the thoughts. There is a difference in the "sense" or "experience" of these two terms that goes deeper than the terms.
It is that "sense" that the seeker is encouraged to cultivate and abide as, hold on to.
Over time, this sense becomes deeply ingrained and one is able to maintain one's focus on it without effort. This is what I call mushin. When not in mushin, while practicing, atma vichara, thoughts disrupt the hold on "I am" and I regain it with some effort, actively moving attention back to that sense of "I am."
Now I understand that many of you have a problem with the words, "sense," "experience," and even "I am." I understand the logic aligned against these. My only counter argument is that my experience, proves to me, that these terms are indeed extremely useful in the practice of atma vichara.
I have now not meditated, zazen,for a few weeks and find myself on the path of atma vichara, and if I may be so bold as to say, moving very rapidly. I know that some will use the fact that I no longer practice zazen as a way to denigrate that practice. I can assure you, that is a mistake. Zazen allowed me to easily transition and experience a depth of being that dovetails nicely into atma vichara.
Here's the question. Was Ramana wrong about atma vichara? It is a practice that relies on experience though admittedly the target IS no experience, no objects, but only Self/love.
I'll just read your responses. I find lately very little desire to interject, but still enjoy hanging, sharing/reading, what the nice folk on this forum post.
|
|
