|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2019 12:05:58 GMT -5
The crux of the matter is the "I" to which appearances are appearing. That "I" disappears in deep sleep and consequently so do the appearances. It too must be an appearance that comes and goes. Are you the disappearing "I"? Are you not the disappearing "I"? Trying to answer these questions can become a riveting hobby. yes, if the seemingly certain 'waking I' is assumptive and questionable, then the seemingly certain appearances are assumptive and questionable. And the assumptiveness is an assumption which is an assumption etc...it turtles down. So I can't go further than 'seems certain', into 'is certain'. In a sense, the 'known' is trusted as 'known'.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 12:17:06 GMT -5
The crux of the matter is the "I" to which appearances are appearing. That "I" disappears in deep sleep and consequently so do the appearances. It too must be an appearance that comes and goes. Are you the disappearing "I"? Are you not the disappearing "I"? Trying to answer these questions can become a riveting hobby. The I that appears and disappears in not the crux of Gopal’s issue, at least I don’t think. What Gopal actually is is backing up a little further and is stepping back out of mind where such a illusion (i.e., “I”) forms. The thinking being written out still has some residual slimy I-stuff sticking to it. Either that or he’s still drinking the green radioactive juice stuff and he’s just punch drunk. 😅
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 12:25:14 GMT -5
I neither believe that there can be said to be an I even now nor that there are appearances. Samadhis are appearances. The assumption of the I IS the belief in the subject, which follows from the belief in an object (appearance). I tend to treat appearances differently, and don't lump cognitive mental processes in with simpler 5/6 senses type stuff. Clearly, a tree can be seen without thinking/believing/assuming there's an "I" looking at it. Yes, there's our disagreement. Once you say "a tree is seen," that "is seen" is necessarily by an "I" which sees it. Trees aren't seen in some kind of generic consciousness; the seeing is always to an individual point of view. The tree is always seen by a specific body-mind. Well, neither, really. I don't assume there's an I right now -- but neither do I assume there are appearances of any kind... that whole framework is a misconception. And in fact it's not even really about what "I" "assume" at all. I mean, sure, but I think I'm going a bit further than many on this point. It's really not accurate to say, as many do, "Yes, of course, of course, we're all the thingless thing, but now what about life?" There is no "what about life" that remains, technically. I mean, we can talk that way if we also admit that in some sense we're talking absolute gibberish; or that in some sense we're simply not talking at all.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 13:08:52 GMT -5
I tend to treat appearances differently, and don't lump cognitive mental processes in with simpler 5/6 senses type stuff. Clearly, a tree can be seen without thinking/believing/assuming there's an "I" looking at it. Yes, there's our disagreement. 1- Once you say "a tree is seen," that "is seen" is necessarily by an "I" which sees it. Trees aren't seen in some kind of generic consciousness; the seeing is always to an individual point of view. The tree is always seen by a specific body-mind. Well, neither, really. 2- I don't assume there's an I right now -- but neither do I assume there are appearances of any kind... that whole framework is a misconception. And in fact it's not even really about what "I" "assume" at all. 3-I mean, sure, but I think I'm going a bit further than many on this point. It's really not accurate to say, as many do, "Yes, of course, of course, we're all the thingless thing, but now what about life?" There is no "what about life" that remains, technically. I mean, we can talk that way if we also admit that in some sense we're talking absolute gibberish; or that in some sense we're simply not talking at all.1- This statement and the subsequent arguments needed to make it sound correct don't work, imo. The tree, the points of view, the body-minds etc....all appearances in/as Consciousness... I do get the point about not-two, not this-that, not subject-object.... distinctions happen in the mind, if that is the general principle. 2- The printed words you are reading are appearing, as are the thoughts, conceptions, and computer on which you are writing. So, based on your pointing, there's an I to which it all appearing.... at least that is how I'm following the line of thought. Either that, or we're in the process of assassinating the word "appearances", altogether. Either way, the ball's in your end of the court. 3- Life is happening in/as Consciousness within the Awareness that YOU are. To some minds, that might sound like gibberish, sure, but we're not talking about satisfying the mind's logic. Right? From Here, it's all out front and one cannot go any further; there is no other. If you say that this is just a bunch of concepts, I will agree that yes, that is probably how it is appearing to you, because that is the function of language.... to express meaning through abstract concepts in the dream of Consciousness. And no, you should not trust such appearances. To Realize is to fail with all of your might, and to glimpse is to get a taste of that unfathomable.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 3, 2019 13:20:32 GMT -5
You guys sound like you're pointing to the same thangless thang. In my case there is only THIS doing whatever it does. I have no idea whether it's all a dream dreamed by THIS or whether it's some sort of "fabulous electronic dance" (in the words of Alan Watts), and I neither care about that nor do I think about that. If we want to say that there is an "I" that sees anything, then that "I" is THIS because there's nothing else here. THIS is unified and infinite, and THIS can directly know Itself in some unknown way (Suzanne Segal said, "The Vastness apparently has an unknown organ of perception through which it can know itself directly," and that's been this character's experience. In Tenka's words, "there is only what we are" and that's more of a verb than a noun if we want to think about it from a linguistic POV.
FWIW, I never understood what Ramana meant by his statement, "Nirvikalpa samadhi is the deepest state, but sahaja samadhi is the highest state," until one day when Satch posted another quote by Ramana that made me realize that what I was calling "flow" is what Ramana was calling sahaja samadhi. When a character lives in a state of flow, thoughts are no longer very important. One does whatever needs to be done, and then does the next thing that needs to be done. It's a non-self referential, non-intellectual, non-seeking, detached, playful, humorous, and equanimitous way of life that's very hard to describe. It's like knowing that one is always at home in the care of an Intelligence that is perfectly so and vast beyond human comprehension. I don't know if that's what everyone else is pointing to, but I suspect it is.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 13:31:23 GMT -5
Yes, there's our disagreement. 1- Once you say "a tree is seen," that "is seen" is necessarily by an "I" which sees it. Trees aren't seen in some kind of generic consciousness; the seeing is always to an individual point of view. The tree is always seen by a specific body-mind. Well, neither, really. 2- I don't assume there's an I right now -- but neither do I assume there are appearances of any kind... that whole framework is a misconception. And in fact it's not even really about what "I" "assume" at all. 3-I mean, sure, but I think I'm going a bit further than many on this point. It's really not accurate to say, as many do, "Yes, of course, of course, we're all the thingless thing, but now what about life?" There is no "what about life" that remains, technically. I mean, we can talk that way if we also admit that in some sense we're talking absolute gibberish; or that in some sense we're simply not talking at all.2- The printed words you are reading are appearing, as are the thoughts, conceptions, and computer on which you are writing. So, based on your pointing, there's an I to which it all appearing.... at least that is how I'm following the line of thought. Either that, or we're in the process of assassinating the word "appearances", altogether. Either way, the ball's in your end of the court. Right, I'm suggesting all those things cannot be said to be appearing. I'm not sure it's all worth arguing about. It's not really something that's a matter of logic.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 13:33:54 GMT -5
FWIW, I never understood what Ramana meant by his statement, "Nirvikalpa samadhi is the deepest state, but sahaja samadhi is the highest state," until one day when Satch posted another quote by Ramana that made me realize that what I was calling "flow" is what Ramana was calling sahaja samadhi. Where did Ramana write that? I just did a quick search through my collection and couldn't find anything corresponding. It frankly doesn't sound much like him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 14:10:30 GMT -5
The crux of the matter is the "I" to which appearances are appearing. That "I" disappears in deep sleep and consequently so do the appearances. It too must be an appearance that comes and goes. Are you the disappearing "I"? Are you not the disappearing "I"? Trying to answer these questions can become a riveting hobby. The I that appears and disappears in not the crux of Gopal’s issue, at least I don’t think. What Gopal actually is is backing up a little further and is stepping back out of mind where such a illusion (i.e., “I”) forms. The thinking being written out still has some residual slimy I-stuff sticking to it. Either that or he’s still drinking the green radioactive juice stuff and he’s just punch drunk. 😅 My mistake. I thought he was interested in looking into the mouth of creation. Only things that can be eaten (appearing/disappearing) are needing to do so.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2019 14:22:56 GMT -5
Yes, there's our disagreement. 1- Once you say "a tree is seen," that "is seen" is necessarily by an "I" which sees it. Trees aren't seen in some kind of generic consciousness; the seeing is always to an individual point of view. The tree is always seen by a specific body-mind. Well, neither, really. 2- I don't assume there's an I right now -- but neither do I assume there are appearances of any kind... that whole framework is a misconception. And in fact it's not even really about what "I" "assume" at all. 3-I mean, sure, but I think I'm going a bit further than many on this point. It's really not accurate to say, as many do, "Yes, of course, of course, we're all the thingless thing, but now what about life?" There is no "what about life" that remains, technically. I mean, we can talk that way if we also admit that in some sense we're talking absolute gibberish; or that in some sense we're simply not talking at all.1- This statement and the subsequent arguments needed to make it sound correct don't work, imo. The tree, the points of view, the body-minds etc....all appearances in/as Consciousness... I do get the point about not-two, not this-that, not subject-object.... distinctions happen in the mind, if that is the general principle. 2- The printed words you are reading are appearing, as are the thoughts, conceptions, and computer on which you are writing. So, based on your pointing, there's an I to which it all appearing.... at least that is how I'm following the line of thought. Either that, or we're in the process of assassinating the word "appearances", altogether. Either way, the ball's in your end of the court. 3- Life is happening in/as Consciousness within the Awareness that YOU are. To some minds, that might sound like gibberish, sure, but we're not talking about satisfying the mind's logic. Right? From Here, it's all out front and one cannot go any further; there is no other. If you say that this is just a bunch of concepts, I will agree that yes, that is probably how it is appearing to you, because that is the function of language.... to express meaning through abstract concepts in the dream of Consciousness. And no, you should not trust such appearances. To Realize is to fail with all of your might, and to glimpse is to get a taste of that unfathomable. Is there any possibility at all that they aren't appearing? That it just seems like they are? And even this 'seems like' is a 'seeming'?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 3, 2019 15:13:56 GMT -5
FWIW, I never understood what Ramana meant by his statement, "Nirvikalpa samadhi is the deepest state, but sahaja samadhi is the highest state," until one day when Satch posted another quote by Ramana that made me realize that what I was calling "flow" is what Ramana was calling sahaja samadhi. Where did Ramana write that? I just did a quick search through my collection and couldn't find anything corresponding. It frankly doesn't sound much like him. I read it several years ago in a book about Ramana, and I have a lot of books about the guy. My Indian friends even brought back books from India about Ramana (some of which can't be found in America as far as I know) because they knew I was interested in him, so it might take a while to locate the particular book. It might be in the book by Ramanasramam titled "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi," but then again it might be in some other book similar to that. FWIW, about three years ago I talked to Gangaji about this specific issue, and she laughed about what I had realized and agreed with my understanding of the quote. Satch is the one who posted a quote by Ramana on this website that cleared up the matter for me. He posted it about 4 years ago as I recall, and if we could find his posting, it might be as interesting to read as the original quote that perplexed me.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 3, 2019 15:14:43 GMT -5
You guys sound like you're pointing to the same thangless thang. In my case there is only THIS doing whatever it does. I have no idea whether it's all a dream dreamed by THIS or whether it's some sort of "fabulous electronic dance" (in the words of Alan Watts), and I neither care about that nor do I think about that. If we want to say that there is an "I" that sees anything, then that "I" is THIS because there's nothing else here. THIS is unified and infinite, and THIS can directly know Itself in some unknown way (Suzanne Segal said, "The Vastness apparently has an unknown organ of perception through which it can know itself directly," and that's been this character's experience. In Tenka's words, "there is only what we are" and that's more of a verb than a noun if we want to think about it from a linguistic POV. FWIW, I never understood what Ramana meant by his statement, "Nirvikalpa samadhi is the deepest state, but sahaja samadhi is the highest state," until one day when Satch posted another quote by Ramana that made me realize that what I was calling "flow" is what Ramana was calling sahaja samadhi. When a character lives in a state of flow, thoughts are no longer very important. One does whatever needs to be done, and then does the next thing that needs to be done. It's a non-self referential, non-intellectual, non-seeking, detached, playful, humorous, and equanimitous way of life that's very hard to describe. It's like knowing that one is always at home in the care of an Intelligence that is perfectly so and vast beyond human comprehension. I don't know if that's what everyone else is pointing to, but I suspect it is. lol you're a one trick pony old man I'm guilty and I admit it.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 15:57:50 GMT -5
2- The printed words you are reading are appearing, as are the thoughts, conceptions, and computer on which you are writing. So, based on your pointing, there's an I to which it all appearing.... at least that is how I'm following the line of thought. Either that, or we're in the process of assassinating the word "appearances", altogether. Either way, the ball's in your end of the court. Right, I'm suggesting all those things cannot be said to be appearing. I'm not sure it's all worth arguing about. It's not really something that's a matter of logic. They can be said to be appearing; it's just not Truth per se. For what it's worth, I do not know anyone at all either, much less anyone who is more comfortable with things lacking logic. Indeed, quite comfy with all things whacky. I get what your saying, it's just not how I'd express it. I'm very comfortable with all things appearing and not "knowing of their reality", because mind is a tool, not the master. The tool gets changed and adjusted to suit the task that appears to be at hand.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 16:01:23 GMT -5
The I that appears and disappears in not the crux of Gopal’s issue, at least I don’t think. What Gopal actually is is backing up a little further and is stepping back out of mind where such a illusion (i.e., “I”) forms. The thinking being written out still has some residual slimy I-stuff sticking to it. Either that or he’s still drinking the green radioactive juice stuff and he’s just punch drunk. 😅 My mistake. I thought he was interested in looking into the mouth of creation. Only things that can be eaten (appearing/disappearing) are needing to do so. Oops, I think I misread your previous post. Yes, to the first sentence, hehe. I think the ambiguity of the next bit is what threw me off.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 16:03:59 GMT -5
Where did Ramana write that? I just did a quick search through my collection and couldn't find anything corresponding. It frankly doesn't sound much like him. I read it several years ago in a book about Ramana, and I have a lot of books about the guy. My Indian friends even brought back books from India about Ramana (some of which can't be found in America as far as I know) because they knew I was interested in him, so it might take a while to locate the particular book. It might be in the book by Ramanasramam titled "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi," but then again it might be in some other book similar to that. FWIW, about three years ago I talked to Gangaji about this specific issue, and she laughed about what I had realized and agreed with my understanding of the quote. Satch is the one who posted a quote by Ramana on this website that cleared up the matter for me. He posted it about 4 years ago as I recall, and if we could find his posting, it might be as interesting to read as the original quote that perplexed me. I just ran a search for posts with the words "nirvikalpa" "sahaja" and "ramana" and saw posts by Satch, but none that sounds like the quote you mention. This quote that Steven posted is the only thing even in the ballpark. Is this what you meant? "Question : What is samadhi? Ramana Maharshi : The state in which the unbroken experience of existence-consciousness is attained by the still mind, alone is samadhi. That still mind which is adorned with the attainment of the limitless supreme Self, alone is the reality of God.
When the mind is in communion with the Self in darkness, it is called nidra [sleep], that is, the immersion of the mind in ignorance. Immersion in a conscious or wakeful state is called samadhi. Samadhi is continuous inherence in the Self in a waking state. Nidra or sleep is also inherence in the Self but in an unconscious state. In sahaja samadhi the communion is continuous.
Question : What are kevala nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi? Ramana Maharshi :The immersion of the mind in the Self, but without its destruction, is kevala nirvikalpa samadhi. In this state one is not free from vasanas and so one does not therefore attain mukti. Only after the vasanas have been destroyed can one attain liberation.
Question : When can one practise sahaja samadhi? Ramana Maharshi : Even from the beginning. Even though one practises kevala nirvikalpa samadhi for years together, if one has not rooted out the vasanas one will not attain liberation.
Question : May I have a clear idea of the difference between savikalpa and nirvikalpa? Ramana Maharshi : Holding on to the supreme state is samadhi. When it is with effort due to mental disturbances, it is savikalpa. When these disturbances are absent, it is nirvikalpa. Remaining permanently in the primal state without effort is sahaja.
Question : Is nirvikalpa samadhi absolutely necessary before the attainment of sahaja? Ramana Maharshi : Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikatpa, is sahaja [the natural state]. What is body-consciousness? It is the insentient body plus consciousness. Both of these must lie in another consciousness which is absolute and unaffected and which remains as it always is, with or without the body-consciousness. What does it then matter whether the body-consciousness is lost or retained, provided one is holding on to that pure consciousness? Total absence of body-consciousness has the advantage of making the samadhi more intense, although it makes no difference to the knowledge of the supreme."
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 16:10:57 GMT -5
You guys sound like you're pointing to the same thangless thang. In my case there is only THIS doing whatever it does. I have no idea whether it's all a dream dreamed by THIS or whether it's some sort of "fabulous electronic dance" (in the words of Alan Watts), and I neither care about that nor do I think about that. If we want to say that there is an "I" that sees anything, then that "I" is THIS because there's nothing else here. THIS is unified and infinite, and THIS can directly know Itself in some unknown way (Suzanne Segal said, "The Vastness apparently has an unknown organ of perception through which it can know itself directly," and that's been this character's experience. In Tenka's words, "there is only what we are" and that's more of a verb than a noun if we want to think about it from a linguistic POV. FWIW, I never understood what Ramana meant by his statement, "Nirvikalpa samadhi is the deepest state, but sahaja samadhi is the highest state," until one day when Satch posted another quote by Ramana that made me realize that what I was calling "flow" is what Ramana was calling sahaja samadhi. When a character lives in a state of flow, thoughts are no longer very important. One does whatever needs to be done, and then does the next thing that needs to be done. It's a non-self referential, non-intellectual, non-seeking, detached, playful, humorous, and equanimitous way of life that's very hard to describe. It's like knowing that one is always at home in the care of an Intelligence that is perfectly so and vast beyond human comprehension. I don't know if that's what everyone else is pointing to, but I suspect it is. Yeah, we're pointing to the same thangless thang. He, apparently, is just doing it in the direction in which no thangs appear; whereas, appearances are being dreamt up Here.
|
|