|
Post by Reefs on Jan 11, 2020 5:54:40 GMT -5
But there's a big difference between having a temporary experience or glimpse of that unchanging reality and becoming permanently established in it which usually takes many years of practice. The meaning of full awakening has been completely devalued by those who mistake intellectual understanding of non-duality writings for the direct experience. Right. Realization is one thing. Integration quite another. No one really seems to care about the latter. In fact, it is mostly ridiculed around here. Said that, I'm always amazed at what kind of psychological baggage some 'self-realized' peeps are still carrying around (often proudly so!).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 11, 2020 6:04:50 GMT -5
Surrender is no different to Samadhi. Wow. No wonder we have a problem communicating on this forum! I doubt that anyone else defines surrender in that way. Ignoring the communication issue for the moment, were you able to enter samadhi the first time you meditated? It does seem like an unusual definition at first, but when you look at it in terms of sahaja, flow and wu wei it does actually make sense.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jan 11, 2020 10:29:37 GMT -5
Really by this logic it would make more sense that surely something OTHER than awareness “creates perception.” If you’re in the audience as a passive witness watching a movie, and you’re seeing every moment of it for the first time, would you conclude that you created it? You’d conclude that it was created by not-you, and by something not in the movie. Who did create it? Who knows? Maybe you could look it up on the Internet for a movie, but we can’t do that with life. Whatever is being perceived is engendered by my consciousness. Consciousness engenders and perceives. It's engendering while it's perceiving. When I optically canvass a movie, movie is being engendered which doesn't differ from the authentic life, but one story pellucidly places as a passive witness and another story places me as a active witness. This is withal best example of why story ultimately decides how we feel. Right, I understand that you're saying so, but you have to argue for it...repeated assertion is not an argument. When you watch a regular movie (say, Batman or whatever), do you conclude you created it just because you're watching it? Clearly not. There were scriptwriters, actors, a director, etc. It doesn't matter whether you 'tell yourself the story' that you’re creating it or not... we don't believe we created a movie just because we watch it. So why should we conclude we create our experience just because we're the witnesses of it?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2020 10:36:32 GMT -5
It is why it is impossible to do. Yes. It is impossible to either do or not do via individual effort. It either happens or it doesn't happen, but it certainly can't be willed. Zackly.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2020 10:40:30 GMT -5
That's all? Oh yes. That's all! Sounds like it came from one of your sacred texts.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2020 10:42:47 GMT -5
Meditation is mostly a mind game. Self inquiry is an inquiry into the self. It may or may not lead to surrender. There's no difference between meditation and self inquiry if you accept that meditation is to abide in non-dual awareness where it's not possible to play any kind of game. You're already in the game. No need to play a game within the game.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2020 10:44:35 GMT -5
It is why it is impossible to do. If you think that you will remain in the state of ignorance. Thinking it is possible to do may lead to decades of trying to do it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 11, 2020 10:49:37 GMT -5
Wow. No wonder we have a problem communicating on this forum! I doubt that anyone else defines surrender in that way. Ignoring the communication issue for the moment, were you able to enter samadhi the first time you meditated? It does seem like an unusual definition at first, but when you look at it in terms of sahaja, flow and wu wei it does actually make sense. Yes, I can see that surrender could be considered a synonym for full acceptance of "what is," but that level of acceptance usually results from numerous realizations and an end to existential questions. Satch says that he fell into deep samadhi at the age of 9, and attained a shallow samadhi as soon as he was instructed in meditation, so his path was obviously quite different than that of most of the people I've met. Most folks are dominated by dozens of ideas about reality that prevent acceptance, and until those ideas are seen through, acceptance/surrender remains an extremely distant possibility. Even among serious Zen students who've meditated for a long time, deep samadhi is fairly rare, much less deep insights into THIS. Satch tells seekers that surrender/acceptance is the easiest thing in the world. That would be like telling someone who thinks that there shouldn't be war, murder, rape, torture, or natural catastrophes, "Forget that idea and just accept that this is the way reality is." Any sage knows that that's true, but is it easy for someone who doesn't know that that's true to just drop that idea? It would be like telling an average Joe, "Forget the idea that you're a SVP, give up all of your fantasies, forget any ideas about how the world or other people ought to be, forget all of your religious or philosophical ideas, and drop all the rest of your cultural conditioning." What's the chance of that happening without some major insights?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2020 11:55:16 GMT -5
ஹஹா, நீங்கள் இந்த த்ரூ கூகிள் மொழிபெயர்ப்பை அல்லது ஏதாவது (தமிழிலிருந்து ஆங்கிலத்திற்கு) இயக்கினீர்களா? I appreciate your honesty, Gopal. And given that you've never made any claims of being self-realized, I have to acknowledge that your conclusions are correct, given your particular perspective (SVP). So in that sense, I basically agree with what you are saying. Self-Realized? I have never come under your category of self-realized. What's Self-realization? knowing who they genuinely are, eh? If so, I know myself not only to be a perceiver but additionally to be an engenderer those perceptions, I consider the people those ken this truth as Self-Realized. As for as I ken, Nobody in this forum except me and Enigma knows this truth. So for me, me and Enigma are the only people are self-realized.what about ken?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 11, 2020 12:47:21 GMT -5
Satch tells seekers that surrender/acceptance is the easiest thing in the world. Self inquiry is not easy? Your AT plus or minus T isn't easy?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 11, 2020 13:35:30 GMT -5
Satch tells seekers that surrender/acceptance is the easiest thing in the world. Self inquiry is not easy? Your AT plus or minus T isn't easy? Again, language is deceptive, but I'll respond by saying the same sort of thing that Niz used to say, "It's not easy at first because endless streams of thoughts interrupt one's focus of attention." I can remember how frustrated I became because I could not count ten breaths in a row without losing the count. It took more than two weeks of practice before I could count 4 breaths in a row without thoughts wandering off and causing me to lose the count. Later, after various realizations, the whole idea of effort would be seen as false, but initially it seemed to take enormous effort to keep attention focused upon sensory perception rather than thoughts. I've talked to a lot of people about a wide variety of different meditative practices and I can't think of anyone who ever described their initial attempts as easy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2020 14:58:36 GMT -5
Self-Realized? I have never come under your category of self-realized. What's Self-realization? knowing who they genuinely are, eh? If so, I know myself not only to be a perceiver but additionally to be an engenderer those perceptions, I consider the people those ken this truth as Self-Realized. As for as I ken, Nobody in this forum except me and Enigma knows this truth. So for me, me and Enigma are the only people are self-realized.what about ken?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2020 20:11:05 GMT -5
''cerebrate'', ''descry'', ''abaft''..... My own dictionary is getting a workout! I particularly enjoyed this... ''I concur that this question doesn't come to a mundane man'' abaft=beyond. God! thanks for giving me an opportunity to teach a vocabulary to an English man. As I understand it, abaft is a nautical term that refers to an area beyond some reference point on the boat. Abaft the stern or abaft the port beam. I don't think it translates outside of the nautical context.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2020 20:23:55 GMT -5
I searched MR Google for an alternate definition of abaft to no avail. His dictionary may have led him a bit abeam on that one. Abaft=Beyond. I have even thought of in my dream that one day I would be edifying you lexica. Thank God!
It does not equal beyond. It's easy to find words that most of us don't know, but please understand that we have English dictionaries to give us the English meaning of English words.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2020 21:50:06 GMT -5
Surrender is no different to Samadhi. Wow. No wonder we have a problem communicating on this forum! I doubt that anyone else defines surrender in that way. Ignoring the communication issue for the moment, were you able to enter samadhi the first time you meditated? And surrender requires a self reference thought.
|
|