|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2020 16:28:25 GMT -5
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. NS there is *knowing* it is pure awareness. (If that's incorrect zd please correct me). Correct. THIS knows that there is pure awareness in the absence of all else. The knowing is direct; it is not intellectual in nature because there are no thoughts in deep samadhi. I might also mention that during what might be called "light samadhi" a few thoughts may bubble up, but in deep samadhi there are absolutely none. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2020 16:30:49 GMT -5
During NS there is *knowing* it is pure awareness. (If that's incorrect zd please correct me). Logically, I would agree that there has to be a very deep and subtle level of knowing, hence why it can be distinguished after from deep sleep, but I guess ZD might disagree (as might Tenka) Correct. It is not like sleep where one becomes unconscious. In deep samadhi awareness is crystal clear in nature and awareness is aware of itself and nothing else in that empty state. That's why it's completely different from waking up after being asleep. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2020 16:57:57 GMT -5
You are saying exactly what SDP is saying, that there is a false sense of self. How can that be? There is a real sense of self which isn't lost after THE realization which is Self realization. After SR this limited self and ego are in unity with an expanded sense of unboundedness. The infinite doesn't get realized. Awareness doesn't get realized. It is the ego that gets realized and which recognizes that it has the same value as the infinite.Jiva = Atman = Brahman Clearly it is the personal aspect which proclaims, "I am awake" as Buddha did on the road when he was asked by a passing stranger to identify himself. I have never agreed nor will I ever agree with those who say there is no one here to be enlightened. When I read someone say that it is consciousness that is typing I just wince.😀 I'm not interested in satoris because they are insights. They're just spiritual experiences. You might refer to one of them as A realization but one of them or many of them are not THE realization when all dissolves into a spontaneous flow of life in unity, whether it is temporary or permanent. It doesn't matter. satch and zd seem to have very different definitions of Self Realization. zd says Self Realization is the recognition that there isn't a limited self/ego, and never has been, the limited self/ego is illusory. satch is saying something quite different here. I say there is a limited self/ego, that it is the false sense of self. It exists as information in the neural structure (you could say as subconscious brain processing). So, what we truly are (as essence) and this false sense of self is, are mutually exclusive, like the two ends of a see-saw (teeter-totter). When one side goes up the other side must necessarily go down. The ego/limited self/false self cannot be enlightened because it doesn't have the capacity to be enlightened. By analogy this would be like trying to put the entire ocean in a thimble. What can shift is one's sense of identity. Let's say the sense of identity is what has the most ~weight~, IOW, the down side of the see-saw. When one considers oneself to be (identity) the limited self/ego, that side of the see-saw is down, one is identified with that. And this is why the limited self/ego cannot become enlightened, this would be like both sides of the see-saw being down, simultaneously. What is lost in SR is not the functionality of the limited self/ego, but the ability to be identified with the limited self/ego, that is, to consider oneself to be the limited self/ego. sdp, satch and zd seem to have different ideas concerning what that means. But if this post is understood (the sense of identity is what can shift), then I think there can be some agreement and understanding. One can ~wear~ the limited self/ego as functionality in-the-world, without considering-themselves- to-be the limited self/ego. {Just to be clear on my POV, for me, essence is one's true sense of individuality. The limited self/ego is a false sense of individuality}. That's why sdp is not SR and will never be SR. I'll get back to this post later, but let me remind you that whatever happens to you in the future is not up to you. Something much bigger than can be imagined is in charge of everything.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2020 16:59:32 GMT -5
Yes. The subconscious self-referential sense must continue even in deep samadhi because afterwards there is a memory of the pure thoughtless perceptionless state of awareness that existed when there was only awareness without content. IOW it's not a mindless state; is a psychological state of empty awareness. Yes. The irony is that is was Tenka who made this so annoyingly clear. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2020 17:35:18 GMT -5
I'll get back to this post later, but let me remind you that whatever happens to you in the future is not up to you. Something much bigger than can be imagined is in charge of everything. drats, I had hoped to retire in a few years Haha. As Papaji used to say, "Wait and see." |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 13, 2020 18:48:28 GMT -5
I'll get back to this post later, but let me remind you that whatever happens to you in the future is not up to you. Something much bigger than can be imagined is in charge of everything. drats, I had hoped to retire in a few years Love is not the opposite of hate. Love encompasses mind and intellect. It's the totality one realizes in the Self. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2020 19:13:28 GMT -5
satch and zd seem to have very different definitions of Self Realization. zd says Self Realization is the recognition that there isn't a limited self/ego, and never has been, the limited self/ego is illusory. satch is saying something quite different here. I say there is a limited self/ego, that it is the false sense of self. It exists as information in the neural structure (you could say as subconscious brain processing). So, what we truly are (as essence) and this false sense of self is, are mutually exclusive, like the two ends of a see-saw (teeter-totter). When one side goes up the other side must necessarily go down. The ego/limited self/false self cannot be enlightened because it doesn't have the capacity to be enlightened. By analogy this would be like trying to put the entire ocean in a thimble. What can shift is one's sense of identity. Let's say the sense of identity is what has the most ~weight~, IOW, the down side of the see-saw. When one considers oneself to be (identity) the limited self/ego, that side of the see-saw is down, one is identified with that. And this is why the limited self/ego cannot become enlightened, this would be like both sides of the see-saw being down, simultaneously. What is lost in SR is not the functionality of the limited self/ego, but the ability to be identified with the limited self/ego, that is, to consider oneself to be the limited self/ego. sdp, satch and zd seem to have different ideas concerning what that means. But if this post is understood (the sense of identity is what can shift), then I think there can be some agreement and understanding. One can ~wear~ the limited self/ego as functionality in-the-world, without considering-themselves- to-be the limited self/ego. {Just to be clear on my POV, for me, essence is one's true sense of individuality. The limited self/ego is a false sense of individuality}. That's why sdp is not SR and will never be SR. I'll get back to this post later, but let me remind you that whatever happens to you in the future is not up to you. Something much bigger than can be imagined is in charge of everything. If it ever happens, I'll make sure to let you know.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 13, 2020 21:06:34 GMT -5
Also, even though there is no sense of selfhood or self-reference, this doesn't seem to result in seeing thru the false sense of self as happens with satori. I mention this because I see Satch and Tenka having great difficulty understanding any satori related topics that we regularly discuss here. It also doesn't seem to resolve existential questions as CC/kensho and satori do. If that's the case, it's really not worth being called a realization. How can that be? There is a real sense of self which isn't lost after THE realization which is Self realization. After SR this limited self and ego are in unity with an expanded sense of unboundedness. The infinite doesn't get realized. Awareness doesn't get realized. It is the ego that gets realized and which recognizes that it has the same value as the infinite. Jiva = Atman = Brahman Clearly it is the personal aspect which proclaims, "I am awake" as Buddha did on the road when he was asked by a passing stranger to identify himself. I have never agreed nor will I ever agree with those who say there is no one here to be enlightened. When I read someone say that it is consciousness that is typing I just wince.😀 I'm not interested in satoris because they are insights. They're just spiritual experiences. You might refer to one of them as A realization but one of them or many of them are not THE realization when all dissolves into a spontaneous flow of life in unity, whether it is temporary or permanent. It doesn't matter. One reason the limited self/ego is limited is because there is no unity in-it. J Krishnamurti called this being fragmented. The limited self/ego is not whole. There is of course the conscious aspect, meaning, the aspects which are available to limited self, but there are aspects which are unconscious. These aspects are in a very real sense buried, not-available. An iceberg is a good picture of the conscious-unconscious, 10% above the water level is conscious or available, 90% below the surface in not available. No unity in the limited self/ego, so how can there be unity between Self and limited self/ego? Part of the unconscious is called the shadow. One meaning of the shadow is what we deny in ourselves. I think there is a lot about satch that is unknown or denied. The unknown in ourselves is more times than not calling the shots, tail wagging the dog. www.amazon.com/Owning-Your-Own-Shadow-Understanding/dp/0062507540 Please don't deny that you snap at people from time to time here. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 13, 2020 21:36:11 GMT -5
During NS there is *knowing* it is pure awareness. Yes! |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 13, 2020 21:52:34 GMT -5
You are saying exactly what SDP is saying, that there is a false sense of self. How can that be? There is a real sense of self which isn't lost after THE realization which is Self realization. After SR this limited self and ego are in unity with an expanded sense of unboundedness. The infinite doesn't get realized. Awareness doesn't get realized. It is the ego that gets realized and which recognizes that it has the same value as the infinite.Jiva = Atman = Brahman Clearly it is the personal aspect which proclaims, "I am awake" as Buddha did on the road when he was asked by a passing stranger to identify himself. I have never agreed nor will I ever agree with those who say there is no one here to be enlightened. When I read someone say that it is consciousness that is typing I just wince.😀 I'm not interested in satoris because they are insights. They're just spiritual experiences. You might refer to one of them as A realization but one of them or many of them are not THE realization when all dissolves into a spontaneous flow of life in unity, whether it is temporary or permanent. It doesn't matter. satch and zd seem to have very different definitions of Self Realization. zd says Self Realization is the recognition that there isn't a limited self/ego, and never has been, the limited self/ego is illusory. satch is saying something quite different here. I say there is a limited self/ego, that it is the false sense of self. It exists as information in the neural structure (you could say as subconscious brain processing). So, what we truly are (as essence) and this false sense of self is, are mutually exclusive, like the two ends of a see-saw (teeter-totter). When one side goes up the other side must necessarily go down. The ego/limited self/false self cannot be enlightened because it doesn't have the capacity to be enlightened. By analogy this would be like trying to put the entire ocean in a thimble. What can shift is one's sense of identity. Let's say the sense of identity is what has the most ~weight~, IOW, the down side of the see-saw. When one considers oneself to be (identity) the limited self/ego, that side of the see-saw is down, one is identified with that. And this is why the limited self/ego cannot become enlightened, this would be like both sides of the see-saw being down, simultaneously. What is lost in SR is not the functionality of the limited self/ego, but the ability to be identified with the limited self/ego, that is, to consider oneself to be the limited self/ego. sdp, satch and zd seem to have different ideas concerning what that means. But if this post is understood (the sense of identity is what can shift), then I think there can be some agreement and understanding. One can ~wear~ the limited self/ego as functionality in-the-world, without considering-themselves- to-be the limited self/ego. {Just to be clear on my POV, for me, essence is one's true sense of individuality. The limited self/ego is a false sense of individuality}. That's why sdp is not SR and will never be SR. You could say that identity shifts from the limited self to unlimited awareness, but the limited self is still there. There is still a sense of self which is why I don't call it a false sense of self. It's a real sense of self because it's a real experience, except that the real sense of self is not your identity. That doesn't make it false because it is included in the reality. Language has its limitations because I could turn this around and say that the sense of self is false if I use the definition that what is changing and appearing and disappearing is false. If you use that definition then the sense of self is false because anything that is changing is false or illusory. but that is only true for the seeker who is discriminating between unchanging and changing. In SR there is Unity or Oneness so you cannot separate out one part of the reality and say it is false. If there is not two then you cannot say the sense of self is false within the context of unity because everything is the reality as realized. This kind of conceptual discussion has its limitations. The sage tells the seeker that changing phenomena is false or illusory in order to get them to turn within to the unchanging reality of silent awareness and to realize that is their true nature. He doesn't tell them and doesn't need to tell them that when they become established and identify with that unchanging awareness that ego and phenomena which appear will also be part of the reality and notions about falsity and delusion will become completely redundant and meaningless as will the terms duality and non-duality. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 13, 2020 22:09:12 GMT -5
You are saying exactly what SDP is saying, that there is a false sense of self. How can that be? There is a real sense of self which isn't lost after THE realization which is Self realization. After SR this limited self and ego are in unity with an expanded sense of unboundedness. The infinite doesn't get realized. Awareness doesn't get realized. It is the ego that gets realized and which recognizes that it has the same value as the infinite. Jiva = Atman = Brahman Clearly it is the personal aspect which proclaims, "I am awake" as Buddha did on the road when he was asked by a passing stranger to identify himself. I have never agreed nor will I ever agree with those who say there is no one here to be enlightened. When I read someone say that it is consciousness that is typing I just wince.😀 I'm not interested in satoris because they are insights. They're just spiritual experiences. You might refer to one of them as A realization but one of them or many of them are not THE realization when all dissolves into a spontaneous flow of life in unity, whether it is temporary or permanent. It doesn't matter. One reason the limited self/ego is limited is because there is no unity in-it. J Krishnamurti called this being fragmented. The limited self/ego is not whole. There is of course the conscious aspect, meaning, the aspects which are available to limited self, but there are aspects which are unconscious. These aspects are in a very real sense buried, not-available. An iceberg is a good picture of the conscious-unconscious, 10% above the water level is conscious or available, 90% below the surface in not available. No unity in the limited self/ego, so how can there be unity between Self and limited self/ego? Part of the unconscious is called the shadow. One meaning of the shadow is what we deny in ourselves. I think there is a lot about satch that is unknown or denied. The unknown in ourselves is more times than not calling the shots, tail wagging the dog. www.amazon.com/Owning-Your-Own-Shadow-Understanding/dp/0062507540 Please don't deny that you snap at people from time to time here. In SR 100% of the iceberg is available to the conscious mind. Vedanta says you are sat chit ananda (existence consciousness bliss) Sat is unknown but it illuminates or gives its value to Chit which is individuated Consciousness plus Mind. Chit knows the absolute as reflected consciousness in the same way that the moon is illuminated by the sun. That realization is experienced as Ananda Bliss/Peace. This is freedom while living in the body. (Jivanmukta) Knowing that you are Sat Chit Ananda as one value is Self-realization. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 14, 2020 1:44:42 GMT -5
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. It's an interesting state to consider. From deep meditation I get a feel that it's possible, and the descriptions match where those states seem to me to lead by matter of degree, but it's a portrait I've never viewed, so I hesitate to draw conclusions about it, as they're all second-hand. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 3:03:26 GMT -5
I only know what's what because I know the difference between mind and no mind and I believe the C.C.'s before hand was mean't to be in order to give me some extra / added perspective of beyond the ordinary mind and beyond the ordinary sense of self . I have to mention it again regarding 'what you are' is still present because it is vital to at least try and understand . When you faint and when you get knocked out there isn't the realization of 'what you are' present that is beyond mind is there?You simply don't remember or you have some vague memory for a while of faces or colours or sounds present . When there is transcendence of I AM and mind, there is 'what you are' present in all it's glory .. LOL ..You are being what you are .. This doesn't happen when you faint or have a C.C. or an OBE or NDE .. The only way I know what I know in regards to what happened is because 'what you are' was still present . Does that make any sense .. It's not about having a knowing that I hadn't fainted in the way that you suggest or that it wasn't deep sleep. If there has been the absence of I AM and what you are is still present then you know that you were not dreaming or knocked out or in deep sleep . It has got nothing to do with I AM being present in someway . It makes sense, except how do you know you were 'being what you are' (i.e not asleep or fainted etc)? In order to know that, there would have to be a very subtle recollection of a very subtle 'quality' of some kind...no? I had already bolded the very answer to your question . Have you ever been asleep or fainted and had what you are present in all it's glory? For most, a peep wakes up in the morning don't they and they can't remember being conscious prior to falling asleep the night before . When I AM disappears along with the mind and the world 'what you are' is present . You have to understand this bit otherwise you won't get it . How I am going to explain this isn't how it is per se but it may help you understand .. When there is no I AM, no world, no mind and there is what you are, there is the totality of what you are that is present . It is the whole sun, it's not just a ray of the sun, it is the whole sun . The sun IS pure love, peace, joy, power, and whatever word you want to use as a descriptor but you are not experiencing it, you are not realizing it, YOU ARE IT .Now when you faint and when you fall asleep at night ARE YOU BEING THE SUN IN TOTALITY . The answer is NO . So when I AM returns to awareness of the mindful world, one knows that there was 'what you are' present .. Any clearer? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 3:11:30 GMT -5
In my eyes these peeps that you know would therefore be immune from sufferings and grief and anger and all that jazz . They would have a permanent smile on their face even when their loved one's are suffering or passover .. and I don't buy that for a minute . Life has it's ups and downs and one is subjected to change . S.S. is a supposed permanent state is in not . I think this is why many have given examples before of peeps simply observing other's being abused who are S.R. or S.S. and not bat an eyelid at what is happening in these instances . I would say that what constitutes S.S. differs here between us .. I don't think that you understand what I'm referring to by the phrase SS. Satch refers to SS as equivalent to SR. I tend to think of SS as a result of SR, but I'm so busy today that I'll have to explain more when I have some free time. No worries, I have my own thoughts about this as we all do, as do the masters I am sure . I see nothing penetrating pure Bliss or Joy or Love in essence, so when I hear about a dude shouting at his devotees for example that isn't reflecting S.S. There would be no state of affairs of this world that could penetrate S.S. for such a dude could stand on the battle ground with peeps blowing each other's heads off and not bat an eye lid because there is the complete being of Self in human experience . It would be the God-Man in disguise . I don't see anyone being able to hold that energy of this world permanently . This is my self measure of S.S. but I toadally understand that other's self measure will be well below my measure . I am just associating my self measure to what we are IS in Man-Form-experience .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 3:21:21 GMT -5
I only know what's what because I know the difference between mind and no mind and I believe the C.C.'s before hand was mean't to be in order to give me some extra / added perspective of beyond the ordinary mind and beyond the ordinary sense of self . I have to mention it again regarding 'what you are' is still present because it is vital to at least try and understand . When you faint and when you get knocked out there isn't the realization of 'what you are' present that is beyond mind is there?You simply don't remember or you have some vague memory for a while of faces or colours or sounds present . When there is transcendence of I AM and mind, there is 'what you are' present in all it's glory .. LOL ..You are being what you are .. This doesn't happen when you faint or have a C.C. or an OBE or NDE .. The only way I know what I know in regards to what happened is because 'what you are' was still present . Does that make any sense .. It's not about having a knowing that I hadn't fainted in the way that you suggest or that it wasn't deep sleep. If there has been the absence of I AM and what you are is still present then you know that you were not dreaming or knocked out or in deep sleep . It has got nothing to do with I AM being present in someway . , my reasoning tells me that your body must have retained the self referential thought in some way, even in the state you describe.. Can I ask, does it matter if the I am was absent or just dormant/hibernating? I'm thinking that if it was dormant, then it would mean we are always being what we are, but just in different degrees of mindfulness....more a continuum than a 'this or that' Just out of curiosity do you think that a blade of grass or a blood cell can self realize? In regards to the blood cell retaining a self reference I have spoken about this best I can regarding the whole self Combo .. It's not as if there is I AM awareness had and the blood cell transcends mind is it lol, so we have to see things in this combo way as described in my older post . The mind-body facilitates the transcendence because without the mind-body there would be nothing to transcend would there . I think your giving the same status to the blood cell as you are to I AM . On one level it's all Self but one has to know it's place and function . I think we are a little too far apart here and I can't really explain what I saying in a way that will make sense to you based upon your thoughts.. I am happy to give it another go if this post helps a bit or you have other questions .. |
|
