|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2020 12:00:37 GMT -5
Satch: where's the quote? He can't, because you have never remotely said such a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2020 12:04:55 GMT -5
I know he's concluding after the fact but without a sense of existence what fact would there be to recall? It's like recalling what it was like while under anesthesia. Do you wake up and recall not having a sense of existence?All most people remember are the counted down numbers.. Four, Three, Tw..... Correct. It's nothing like sleep. It's like {a parenthesis in time} has been completely been erased, like it didn't even exist. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2020 12:07:13 GMT -5
No. The experiencer can only say that for a certain period of time the sense of selfhood and everything else disappeared into a state of pure awareness. The only realization that I can relate to NS is the realization that such a state of pure awareness is possible. To say that 'The only realization that you can relate to NS is the realization that such a state of pure awareness is possible'. So what is the state of pure awareness in reflection of what you are? if you are in agreement that there is only what you are, then pure awareness must be that?To only realize that pure awareness IS after the event must equate to I AM realizing I AM pure awareness after the event . If a peep has no idea what pure awareness IS in relation to what they are then they must be completely confused . There is no confusion had when you realize what you are .. so something isn't quite right here is it . Peeps say there is no doubt had at all, and I would concur with this statement . This is why pure awareness is problematic when we are speaking of I AM being absent because pure awareness is a self reference isn't it . This is why I leave 'what we are' well alone in regards to making a statement of what that is . So what perhaps is the case here is that there is pure awareness absent of I AM that leaves the experiencer none the wiser of what has happened and pure awareness absent of I AM that leaves the experiencer knowing that I AM is that without any doubt . To me this is a bit odd to say the least but I haven't been left with confusion but maybe some peeps have? I am trying to envisage a dude after the event saying wtf was that and carry on with their life under some misguided sense of themselves ..  But that's a realization, without which you can't conclude from your pure awareness state that you experienced what you truly are. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2020 12:14:58 GMT -5
Are you doing, like, a stream of consciousness thingy? That's why I said that K needs his own thread. His posts don't relate to whatever is being discussed in any way that I can see. Maybe he needs somebody to help him trigger his stream of random thoughts.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2020 12:17:41 GMT -5
I know he's concluding after the fact but without a sense of existence what fact would there be to recall? It's like recalling what it was like while under anesthesia. Do you wake up and recall not having a sense of existence?All most people remember are the counted down numbers.. Four, Three, Tw..... Right. Total absence of knowledge about anything having happened. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 13, 2020 12:24:40 GMT -5
But that's a realization, without which you can't conclude from your pure awareness state that you experienced what you truly are. Well that's the crux of it. You think the experience of pure awareness as fundamental is arrived at as a conclusion after the fact instead of a direct experience happening in the now which is what someone would say who hasn't experienced it, because they think they wouldn't be there to know it. If you put your hand in the fire do you "conclude" you are burning as a result of some kind of realization or do you just feel a burning sensation? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2020 12:26:40 GMT -5
Are you doing, like, a stream of consciousness thingy? It's a humorous metaphor for "be aware of the fact of his own absence -- without having been there in any way during the absence".  I think what tenka means by " .. 'I AM is absent while what you are is present' .. " is what ZD calls nirvikalpa samadhi: pure awareness with no thought or sensation. Only ZD does not come away from it with a realization of what you are, just the experience of a state. From what I can tell, Tenka experienced a mind state of no mind, and then concluded that the experiencer wasn't present for the experience. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2020 12:27:49 GMT -5
If that's so then why do you think that nirvikalpa samadhi has nothing to do with SR, when SR itself is sahaja samadhi? Sahaja samadhi is Self Realization. We'll discuss this in more depth soon enough, but the short answer is that SS is a state of being and SR is a realization, and there is a difference between a state of being and a realization. zd is correct. satch cannot possibly be correct. sdp is not SR, knows nothing about SR. But sdp is familiar with SS (but not NS, which is why I asked the question about the organism). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2020 12:31:34 GMT -5
As far as I can see you're the only one in this forum who understands that. It's quite lovely to see you two bonding. Whether or not it qualifies as bonding depends on what statement he was referring to, and I have no idea. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2020 12:36:34 GMT -5
But that's a realization, without which you can't conclude from your pure awareness state that you experienced what you truly are. Well that's the crux of it. You think the experience of pure awareness as fundamental is arrived at as a conclusion after the fact instead of a direct experience happening in the now which is what someone would say who hasn't experienced it, because they think they wouldn't be there to know it. If you put your hand in the fire do you "conclude" you are burning as a result of some kind of realization or do you just feel a burning sensation? Nobody is saying this, or this. Awareness is ~recognized~, but there is no *person* who recognizes, until after the fact. This has been pretty clearly stated. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 13, 2020 12:39:57 GMT -5
Well that's the crux of it. You think the experience of pure awareness as fundamental is arrived at as a conclusion after the fact instead of a direct experience happening in the now which is what someone would say who hasn't experienced it, because they think they wouldn't be there to know it. If you put your hand in the fire do you "conclude" you are burning as a result of some kind of realization or do you just feel a burning sensation? Nobody is saying this, or this. Awareness is ~recognized~, but there is no *person* who recognizes, until after the fact. This has been pretty clearly stated. That's not true which is why you don't know sahaja samadhi as you claim to because in SS which is SR there is no difference between person and awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2020 13:12:34 GMT -5
No. The experiencer can only say that for a certain period of time the sense of selfhood and everything else disappeared into a state of pure awareness. The only realization that I can relate to NS is the realization that such a state of pure awareness is possible.Should also tell you that awareness is fundamental, perhaps? also, is that a pure boundaried awareness or pure unboundaried awareness? No. In my case the discovery that awareness is fundamental came from a realization not directly associated with NS. It may have triggered that realization, but the realization did not occur as a direct result of NS. When I talk about the empty awareness of NS, there is nothing known about anything, much less boundaries. The boundarylessness of THIS, or Self, or Source, comes from a particular realization. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2020 13:14:44 GMT -5
But that's a realization, without which you can't conclude from your pure awareness state that you experienced what you truly are. Well that's the crux of it. You think the experience of pure awareness as fundamental is arrived at as a conclusion after the fact instead of a direct experience happening in the now which is what someone would say who hasn't experienced it, because they think they wouldn't be there to know it. If you put your hand in the fire do you "conclude" you are burning as a result of some kind of realization or do you just feel a burning sensation? That's not what he said and it's not what he's pointing to. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 13, 2020 13:18:33 GMT -5
Well that's the crux of it. You think the experience of pure awareness as fundamental is arrived at as a conclusion after the fact instead of a direct experience happening in the now which is what someone would say who hasn't experienced it, because they think they wouldn't be there to know it. If you put your hand in the fire do you "conclude" you are burning as a result of some kind of realization or do you just feel a burning sensation? That's not what he said and it's not what he's pointing to. You seem to be doing a lot of speaking on behalf of enigma. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 13, 2020 13:25:35 GMT -5
Should also tell you that awareness is fundamental, perhaps? also, is that a pure boundaried awareness or pure unboundaried awareness? No. In my case the discovery that awareness is fundamental came from a realization not directly associated with NS. It may have triggered that realization, but the realization did not occur as a direct result of NS. When I talk about the empty awareness of NS, there is nothing known about anything, much less boundaries. The boundarylessness of THIS, or Self, or Source, comes from a particular realization. presumably after the NS you knew that it had been a state of pure awareness....? And you were also able to say that mind was absent, so at that point, did you consider that this 'pure awareness' was perhaps being generated by the body (given that you had yet to realize that awareness was fundamental/without boundary)? Im curious as to what you thought that pure awareness was, given the absence of a realization...? Given that Tenka knew afterwards that there 'is only what you are', it sounds like your minds were informed a bit differently after the event. |
|
