|
Post by zendancer on Dec 3, 2019 16:28:16 GMT -5
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."No. That's an interesting quote, but not the one I was referring to. I'll search around and see if I can find both the Ramana quote that initially perplexed me and the Ramana quote that Satch posted that resolved my curiosity.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 16:29:24 GMT -5
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'? Sure, I suppose. That's why existence itself could be called a dream and not referred to so much as an "objective reality". That's purddy much where Sifty is going via the neti neti approach, and I be cool beans with that. It's good to destabilize the mind's stranglehold in any way possible, for the most part anyway. Such efforts can be met with all kinds of resistance though. For example, some folks had a hard time with the simple dream analogy previously, and started to dream up all sorts of whacky counters to the analogy, and I did notice how the resistance started to take form in word and deed. Such interesting drama...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 3, 2019 16:33:14 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. There's no objection here to this pointing, but then again, the subject/object split is right at the crux of the existential matter .. so, in terms of pointing, there's an alternative approach, and it will sound in the presentation as the opposite to where you're coming from. Viewed one way, in terms of the concepts, there's no denying the duality of experience, or, in a passive sense, the duality of perception. And, I take your meaning in denying that appearances are appearing as a denial of that duality, in favor of nonduality. But, then again, there is another meaning available here, one in which there is no division between the happening and the one experiencing the happening, one in which there is no division between the perception, and the perceiver. So, no "I" perceiving or experiencing, only, perception and experience. I'd suggest that this presentation is potentially useful in terms of addressing inquiry while a person is eyes-open, and engaged in action. "Losing oneself" in an activity is a common experience that can be leveraged to get the point across. But, it's an incomplete approach, as it doesn't address what can be encountered in deep meditation, as the world falls away. Personally, I found the two different approaches to be complimentary.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 3, 2019 16:40:28 GMT -5
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'? Sure, I suppose. That's why existence itself could be called a dream and not referred to so much as an "objective reality". That's purddy much where Sifty is going via the neti neti approach, and I be cool beans with that. It's good to destabilize the mind's stranglehold in any way possible, for the most part anyway. Such efforts can be met with all kinds of resistance though. For example, some folks had a hard time with the simple dream analogy previously, and started to dream up all sorts of whacky counters to the analogy, and I did notice how the resistance started to take form in word and deed. Such interesting drama... yes, i was really just following up on your convo with sifting. All good
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 16:41:37 GMT -5
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. There's no objection here to this pointing, but then again, the subject/object split is right at the crux of the existential matter .. so, in terms of pointing, there's an alternative approach, and it will sound in the presentation as the opposite to where you're coming from. Viewed one way, in terms of the concepts, there's no denying the duality of experience, or, in a passive sense, the duality of perception. And, I take your meaning in denying that appearances are appearing as a denial of that duality, in favor of nonduality. But, then again, there is another meaning available here, one in which there is no division between the happening and the one experiencing the happening, one in which there is no division between the perception, and the perceiver. So, no "I" perceiving or experiencing, only, perception and experience. I'd suggest that this presentation is potentially useful in terms of addressing inquiry while a person is eyes-open, and engaged in action. "Losing oneself" in an activity is a common experience that can be leveraged to get the point across. But, it's an incomplete approach, as it doesn't address what can be encountered in deep meditation, as the world falls away. Personally, I found the two different approaches to be complimentary. Oh sure, I think I basically agree with that. In fact, I don't really use the "appearances aren't appearing" bit all that much as a pointer... it's too experience-distant. It's more of an answer to the metaphysical questions like Gopal's: 'But how does it all come about, these experiences?' or an argument against an excessively 'integrative' theory of awakening or an answer to people who want to know what the realized state 'is really like.' That appearances appear, but are not what they seem, is usually I find more useful as a pointer for the most part. Mirage/maya/illusion theory...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 3, 2019 17:01:34 GMT -5
There's no objection here to this pointing, but then again, the subject/object split is right at the crux of the existential matter .. so, in terms of pointing, there's an alternative approach, and it will sound in the presentation as the opposite to where you're coming from. Viewed one way, in terms of the concepts, there's no denying the duality of experience, or, in a passive sense, the duality of perception. And, I take your meaning in denying that appearances are appearing as a denial of that duality, in favor of nonduality. But, then again, there is another meaning available here, one in which there is no division between the happening and the one experiencing the happening, one in which there is no division between the perception, and the perceiver. So, no "I" perceiving or experiencing, only, perception and experience. I'd suggest that this presentation is potentially useful in terms of addressing inquiry while a person is eyes-open, and engaged in action. "Losing oneself" in an activity is a common experience that can be leveraged to get the point across. But, it's an incomplete approach, as it doesn't address what can be encountered in deep meditation, as the world falls away. Personally, I found the two different approaches to be complimentary. Oh sure, I think I basically agree with that. In fact, I don't really use the "appearances aren't appearing" bit all that much as a pointer... it's too experience-distant. It's more of an answer to the metaphysical questions like Gopal's: 'But how does it all come about, these experiences?' or an argument against an excessively 'integrative' theory of awakening or an answer to people who want to know what the realized state 'is really like.' That appearances appear, but are not what they seem, is usually I find more useful as a pointer for the most part. Mirage/maya/illusion theory... Yank that rug!
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 17:14:33 GMT -5
Oh sure, I think I basically agree with that. In fact, I don't really use the "appearances aren't appearing" bit all that much as a pointer... it's too experience-distant. It's more of an answer to the metaphysical questions like Gopal's: 'But how does it all come about, these experiences?' or an argument against an excessively 'integrative' theory of awakening or an answer to people who want to know what the realized state 'is really like.' That appearances appear, but are not what they seem, is usually I find more useful as a pointer for the most part. Mirage/maya/illusion theory... Yank that rug!
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 17:15:11 GMT -5
Sure, I suppose. That's why existence itself could be called a dream and not referred to so much as an "objective reality". That's purddy much where Sifty is going via the neti neti approach, and I be cool beans with that. It's good to destabilize the mind's stranglehold in any way possible, for the most part anyway. Such efforts can be met with all kinds of resistance though. For example, some folks had a hard time with the simple dream analogy previously, and started to dream up all sorts of whacky counters to the analogy, and I did notice how the resistance started to take form in word and deed. Such interesting drama... yes, i was really just following up on your convo with sifting. All good Yeah, all good! ✌🏽
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 17:25:31 GMT -5
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. There's no objection here to this pointing, but then again, the subject/object split is right at the crux of the existential matter .. so, in terms of pointing, there's an alternative approach, and it will sound in the presentation as the opposite to where you're coming from. Viewed one way, in terms of the concepts, there's no denying the duality of experience, or, in a passive sense, the duality of perception. And, I take your meaning in denying that appearances are appearing as a denial of that duality, in favor of nonduality. But, then again, there is another meaning available here, one in which there is no division between the happening and the one experiencing the happening, one in which there is no division between the perception, and the perceiver. So, no "I" perceiving or experiencing, only, perception and experience. I'd suggest that this presentation is potentially useful in terms of addressing inquiry while a person is eyes-open, and engaged in action. "Losing oneself" in an activity is a common experience that can be leveraged to get the point across. But, it's an incomplete approach, as it doesn't address what can be encountered in deep meditation, as the world falls away. Personally, I found the two different approaches to be complimentary. Yep, as long as the intention is clarity, realization(s), honesty, and dropping off baggage, all good... come what may!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 3, 2019 22:07:37 GMT -5
First paragraph, that's the meaning of the analogy of an echo, time and space are the warp and woof between the voicing and the (2nd) hearing. Second paragraph, not necessarily. The universe was formed (by Big C Consciousness) with virtually no curvature, IOW, flat. Why? So little c consciousness could oppose entropy. Life counteracts entropy. Left to itself, yes, eventually there would be a cold dark universe, open. But man-like and woman-like beings throughout the cosmos are the pivotal fulcrum, *~we~* are the middle-ground acting agents that can tilt the balance to a closed universe, Self-perpetuating, as we see in the Upanishads. But nothing is guaranteed. Life depends on positive entropy. The sun illuminates the planet causing photosynthesis. Plants are then eaten by animals and other animals eat these animals all the way to the top of the food chain. But when that positive entropy turns to negative entropy then life cannot be sustained. But that's quite separate from Consciousness itself which doesn't need a body. You have it backwards. Life is negative entropy. (You can't read the whole article, but you can read enough. But the video contains the full text). study.com/academy/lesson/negative-entropy-definition-lesson.htmlThe other. Consciousness itself doesn't need a body. Correct. Consciousness is the origin of everything. You could say the Unmanifest is the Origin of the manifest. Now, the Unmanifest is always related to the manifest. But the manifest is not always related to the Unmanifest. That is, for most people, they do not have a relationship to the Unmanifest. That relationship has to be in a real sense, forged. Forged in the sense that a Pathway is necessary. How? Through negative entropy. The former post explores this, in a nutshell. Would you at least agree that the Recognition of Oneness (many names to represent this) occurs on an ~individual~ basis? (The Recognition of satchitananda is "his", not mine or anyone else's. Is nontransferable). That is, in some sense, the consciousness of sca blends with Consciousness. (This is impossible to put exactly into words). This "process" involves negative entropy. Almost everything (significant) I have ever written on ST's goes back to this as a central hub.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 3, 2019 22:20:13 GMT -5
Thanks for that. Yes you are right, I was talking crap. I was thinking of it in "positive" terms because it sustains life but of course it's all negative entropy.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 3, 2019 22:31:00 GMT -5
Thanks for that. Yes you are right, I was talking crap. I was thinking of it in "positive" terms because it sustains life but of course it's all negative entropy. No problem. I just added to the post with an edit.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 3, 2019 22:37:53 GMT -5
Gopal is master of honesty and logic. Did you ever see the movie Tron? Probably not. Jeff Bridges play Flynn. He is a programmer. He used to work for a company working on AI. The company head is up to nefarious purposes. He had stolen some of Flynn's programming, actually some important stuff that led to breakthroughs in AI. Flynn breaks in the corporation and hacks looking for proof the bad guy stole his ideas. And then he is kidnapped by the Master Control Program, a laser digitizes Flynn, transforms his flesh and blood into information. So now Flynn is actually in the computer. He begins to interact with people-like programs. These are kept in the dark about their creator-programmers. But there are rumors among the people-like-programs that, outside the computer exists beings who programmed them, their User. Flynn eventually meets Tron. Flynn is friends with Tron's User, Alan. So then Flynn spills the news, He (Flynn) is a User. So he confirms to the people-like-programs that Users are in fact real, that he himself is a User. Well...they treat him like a god. OK, it moves on from there...pretty good for 1982. So what Gopal is saying, by way of analogy, is he knows that he is a User. But he doesn't know if his daughter, or anyone else, is a User or merely a people-like-program. And, from the principle of non-volition, we could all be merely programming, living as simulations in a computer world. We could really already be living in a "Second World", and Second Worlds are really third worlds. Another pretty good movie along these lines, The Thirteenth Floor. I have watched it actually Pilgrim .. When you say ''So what Gopal is saying, by way of analogy, is he knows that he is a User. But he doesn't know if his daughter, or anyone else, is a User or merely a people-like-program''. Gopal therefore has to know that there is the comparison. He can't know the comparison by his own admission . He has to know what is real and what isn't real . He hasn't explained his realization of what is real and he hasn't had a realization of what isn't .. You can't therefore have a quandary about who isn't real when you don't no what being unreal is ... I am not sure if anyone can see this simplistic requirement that is needed in order to have a quandary in the first place . The fact that he believes everything is consciousness and consciousness is aware say's it all . The way that he speaks about appearances is irrelevant if he doesn't address his own and this must entail the knowing of what is unreal and real as a foundation .. He can't know anything about other's, so his own foundation works against itself. I would say you are absolutely correct. Gopal is mostly logic. If he really knew he was a User, he would be able to recognize who is not a User, that is, who is merely an appearance. I'm going to give another analogy with the film Blade Runner.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 3, 2019 22:42:20 GMT -5
Would you at least agree that the Recognition of Oneness (many names to represent this) occurs on an ~individual~ basis? (The Recognition of satchitananda is "his", not mine or anyone else's. Is nontransferable). That is, in some sense, the consciousness of sca blends with Consciousness. Yes I would agree. I have always said that the ego attains the same unlimited value as Consciousness in full awakeness. The ego knows that it is awake. This is where I disagree with the nondualists and it's why I associate myself more with tantric Shaivism than extreme nonduality in terms of its explanation of reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 23:03:01 GMT -5
This is one of the fantastic question. Consciousness is witnessing the movement of thoughts/Perceptions. This consciousness is also inseparable from what's being perceived, If so, who is creating the movement of thoughts? Ask this question to yourself. Answer might surprise you! The answer itself mutes the answer. THE conclusion to all questions/questing is in the realization of Self and the subsequent stilling of mind. The conclusion to thought does not result from a thought-based answer, but in the ceasing of the thought process. It doesn't.
|
|