|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 3:33:29 GMT -5
Yes, eggsactly this is why I talk about comparisons had . This is why I gave the example of knowing you were asleep the moment you awaken . You are not in this instance knowing you are awake prior to awakening . What is difficult to understand about this? LOL .. we all experience this most morning's . I AM and beyond I AM, mind and no mind, self and no self is no different in one way because you know that I AM is present the moment there is awareness of I AM compared to not . The moment you regain I AM awareness you know that I AM was absent because what you are was still present . This I can understand as being misunderstood because peeps need the realization of what they are that is beyond I AM . If there is no comparison for this then it can be difficult to understand for sure . Eggzakly? You mean an after the fact difference between two states of mind? Yes, I believe that's what happened. A comparison had between self and no self, mind and no mind, I AM and no I AM, this is not referring to two mind states . Where have I suggested two mind states being compared with or too? Like said, peeps need the comparison of self and no self, mind and no mind, I AM and no I AM otherwise all they are doing is bouncing different self reflections off each other . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 3:51:29 GMT -5
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. Well it's a realization of a sort where one concludes that there is firstly 'only what you are' after the fact and then there is ' pure awareness' experienced as and during N.S .. The problem here as I see it peeps can having a knowing that it's pure awareness and not have a knowing that it relates to what you are .  If there is a knowing that it is pure awareness during the experience then I AM and mind is still present . What you are beyond mind doesn't know what pure awareness is or relates too only you / I AM does that is of it . Very simple tell tale signs in effect that illustrate if one is still of the mind or not . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 3:59:03 GMT -5
Yes the I AM was missing . The I AM however is not missing when you know that I AM was missing based upon the comparison had . You know that you had been asleep the moment you have woken up . You are not asleep at the moment you know you are asleep are you because you would have to be awake ..Your mixing it all up in a way that brings you confusion . So in lucid dreams I'm actually awake?  Your sleep analogy adds unnecessary confusion. It's not an example of no mind/no I AM, unless you talk about dreamless sleep, about which you know nothing at all because of exactly what you're talking about; no mind/no I AM. I am not talking about lucid dreams am I lol . I am illustrating what I mean by using a sleep and an awake experience had, that most peeps have daily . This illustration does not add confusion at all . You add confusion by speaking about another context . Keep to the context and you will be fine here . It is true enough to say that you only know you have been asleep the moment you wake up . Just apply that as best you can to what I am saying regarding I AM and I AM not .. It's very straightforward . For the record there is no comparison that is of this mind that can relate to beyond it so the sleep analogy is the best i can come up with . Your welcome to give another comparison that is of the mind that relates to what I am saying . If you had the comparison for mind and no mind, I AM and no I AM then you wouldn't have questions about it and I wouldn't have to illustrate what I mean by it by using analogies of the mind . |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 4:06:32 GMT -5
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. This is what doesn't add up for me . There is the knowing during the event that pure awareness is present, but after the event you don't know how that relates to you . So you can realize pure awareness and you can continue your day thinking you are solely a flesh and blood peep . Maybe some peeps find it such an alien experience that they can't process it or integrate it within their daily life, I can buy that . But maybe that say's more about the ripening stage of the peep rather than the actual experience itself .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2020 4:21:05 GMT -5
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 .. Integration would include re-writing these kinds of fantasies. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 4:28:30 GMT -5
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? yes, I think so  It sounds here that you have a very clear and tangible sense of what that state was like. Yes, it's not easy, or adequate, or correct, putting it into words because it is 'beyond words' in a particular sense, though I guess it would resonate more to say that it is a state of pure power, love and peace than to say it is a state of powerlessness, hate and conflict. Though again, the interpretation that I am was dormant, rather than absent, makes more sense to me (though doesn't matter) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 4:40:40 GMT -5
See if simple organic matter or plant life has a self referential thought, 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 .. no, I don't think they can be said to 'self realize' (nor a baby), because they don't have sufficient 'mindful' capacity to hold false beliefs. As such, they are also closer to the pure state of 'being what they are'. But it's also for the sake of your previous arguments that I think it's probably better to say that 'I am' was buried deep during your realization. It helps your context hold up under scrutiny at the edges where contexts often fray. Simply, 'aliveness' = 'amness and self referential thought'. But in the end, this is more your discussion than mine, so it's up to you really. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 4:43:46 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. This is what doesn't add up for me . There is the knowing during the event that pure awareness is present, but after the event you don't know how that relates to you . So you can realize pure awareness and you can continue your day thinking you are solely a flesh and blood peep . Maybe some peeps find it such an alien experience that they can't process it or integrate it within their daily life, I can buy that .
But maybe that say's more about the ripening stage of the peep rather than the actual experience itself .. yes |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 4:47:21 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 it's a realization of a sort where one concludes that there is firstly 'only what you are' after the fact and then there is ' pure awareness' experienced as and during N.S .. The problem here as I see it peeps can having a knowing that it's pure awareness and not have a knowing that it relates to what you are . If there is a knowing that it is pure awareness during the experience then I AM and mind is still present .What you are beyond mind doesn't know what pure awareness is or relates too only you / I AM does that is of it . Very simple tell tale signs in effect that illustrate if one is still of the mind or not . yes, i tried to balance this problem by saying it's a very subtle knowing at very subtle level. And I would guess that it is known in the same way you gave me the 'sun' analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 14, 2020 4:54:01 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. This is what doesn't add up for me . There is the knowing during the event that pure awareness is present, but after the event you don't know how that relates to you . So you can realize pure awareness and you can continue your day thinking you are solely a flesh and blood peep . Maybe some peeps find it such an alien experience that they can't process it or integrate it within their daily life, I can buy that . But maybe that say's more about the ripening stage of the peep rather than the actual experience itself .. Yes exactly. There is knowing during the NS because awareness is pure knowing/knowingness as the ultimate subject knowing itself. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 6:37:09 GMT -5
This is what doesn't add up for me . There is the knowing during the event that pure awareness is present, but after the event you don't know how that relates to you . So you can realize pure awareness and you can continue your day thinking you are solely a flesh and blood peep . Maybe some peeps find it such an alien experience that they can't process it or integrate it within their daily life, I can buy that . But maybe that say's more about the ripening stage of the peep rather than the actual experience itself .. Yes exactly. There is knowing during the NS because awareness is pure knowing/knowingness as the ultimate subject knowing itself. If that's what N.S. refers to then I agree, so therefore when there is Self beyond the 'ultimate subject' there is no knowingness . That is why there is only a knowingness when I AM returns to mindful awareness be it of this world or experiencing pure awareness it matter's not what it is. This is partly where I don't see eye to eye with andy because it's like he relates to there being a type of connection of I AM with no I AM . What you are is present regardless and what I believe peeps are doing in some way is dividing or separating I AM with Self . I believe you pulled E up on this also a few days back . Peeps are not understanding the Self in reflection of I AM and no I AM . If Self is form (just as an example) then Self is only known when there is a mindful mirror in reflection of that form . When there is no mirror there is no knowing in reflection, but Self is still present . You can't have a knowing of any kind while there is no mirror present and in effect . When you regain awareness of a reflection of Self/form you only then know that Self without a reflection is present while there is no mirror . You know that because there is only Self that is present regardless of the reflection or not . It's not a knowing that filters across from beyond knowing it is simply what you are that is .. And only the mindful Self can make sense of that when the reflection returns .. Peeps understandably so can't understand that I AM and mind can be absent and that's only known / realized / concluded once I AM has returned within awareness . I can see why other's can't see this, but as always said right from day one that there requires the comparison, otherwise peeps will be bouncing reflections of what they are off other reflections of what they are all day long . These are simply knowings reflecting because the mirror is still present . |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 14, 2020 6:44:51 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. 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. Yes, I agree with all of that except to say that the sense of self after SR is not the same as before. As you say, the over-riding knowledge is one of unity rather than separation, so the old idea of being an entity separate from the totality is eradicated. In this sense we could call the false sense of self a set of false ideas that obscured the underlying truth of unity. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 6:46:20 GMT -5
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? yes, I think so It sounds here that you have a very clear and tangible sense of what that state was like. Yes, it's not easy, or adequate, or correct, putting it into words because it is 'beyond words' in a particular sense, though I guess it would resonate more to say that it is a state of pure power, love and peace than to say it is a state of powerlessness, hate and conflict. Though again, the interpretation that I am was dormant, rather than absent, makes more sense to me (though doesn't matter) Perhaps 'state' is a little misleading but when I AM returned within awareness I could understand the comparison for sure .. It's as clear as it is day, there is either I AMness or there isn't . It really isn't difficult to understand at all and in all honesty my analogies do work well here .. Do you agree that when you faint or when you sleep you don't have the sun in totality present? |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 14, 2020 6:51:17 GMT -5
Yes exactly. There is knowing during the NS because awareness is pure knowing/knowingness as the ultimate subject knowing itself. If that's what N.S. refers to then I agree, so therefore when there is Self beyond the 'ultimate subject' there is no knowingness . That is why there is only a knowingness when I AM returns to mindful awareness be it of this world or experiencing pure awareness it matter's not what it is. I am saying that pure awareness knowing itself is prior to I Am. There is no I Am when there is only pure awareness. It all depends on what you mean by I Am. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 6:51:38 GMT -5
Well it's a realization of a sort where one concludes that there is firstly 'only what you are' after the fact and then there is ' pure awareness' experienced as and during N.S .. The problem here as I see it peeps can having a knowing that it's pure awareness and not have a knowing that it relates to what you are . If there is a knowing that it is pure awareness during the experience then I AM and mind is still present .What you are beyond mind doesn't know what pure awareness is or relates too only you / I AM does that is of it . Very simple tell tale signs in effect that illustrate if one is still of the mind or not . yes, i tried to balance this problem by saying it's a very subtle knowing at very subtle level. And I would guess that it is known in the same way you gave me the 'sun' analogy. As just said to Satch there is no knowing on any level beyond I AM awareness . I can only make a reference to the sun because there is a mindful sense of I AM present here and now . The reason why I said that the sun analogy wasn't 'it' was because it wasn't, it was only an analogy given from a mindful perspective . What you are beyond mind is present when I AM is absent . What this means is still not understood . I hope that my post to Satch may spread a little more light on this, but I totally understand that you have your perspective on this because it makes sense to you .. |
|
.
