|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 6:55:21 GMT -5
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. Pure awareness must be something that can know itself as pure awareness . How does it know what pure awareness is? Self beyond mind doesn't know what pure awareness is Self doesn't know anything of itself . |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 14, 2020 7:02:06 GMT -5
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. Pure awareness must be something that can know itself as pure awareness . How does it know what pure awareness is? Self beyond mind doesn't know what pure awareness is Self doesn't know anything of itself . Pure awareness knows what it is because it is aware. I Am is the root of ego which arises from awareness and identifies as personal self and which has all of the self-references you were talking about when it comes to drinking milk etc. Ramana said that your fundamental state of pure awareness was the real I which he called I am I. This precedes egoic I which gives rise to I Am hungry, I Am happy, I Am going for a walk. Nisargadatta spoke about putting the attention on the I Am sense until it dissolved and was transcended and what remained was pure awareness. You have already said that awareness is known during the event so it doesn't require I Am to know it if it has been transcended. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 7:10:25 GMT -5
Pure awareness must be something that can know itself as pure awareness . How does it know what pure awareness is? Self beyond mind doesn't know what pure awareness is Self doesn't know anything of itself . . I Am is the root of ego which arises from awareness and identifies as personal self and which has all of the self-references you were talking about when it comes to drinking milk etc. Rama said that your fundamental state of pure awareness was the real I which he called I am I. This precedes egoic I which gives rise to I Am hungry, I Am happy, I Am going for a walk. Nisargadatta spoke about putting the attention on the I Am sense until it dissolved and was transcended and what remained was pure awareness. You have already said that awareness is known during the event so it doesn't require I Am to know it if it is been transcended. I can go along with this because the fundamental thought of I AM preceded the thought of I AM hungry or I AM going for milk . This was reflecting the non functional state I was talking about earlier . This however is mindful . You said that pure awareness knowing itself is prior to I Am .. but there was awareness of I AM prior to their being awareness of anything ego related .. This is why I say that stating what you are as awareness or consciousness causes problems . .. awareness by itself doesn't know anything .. To know something must reflect something to know .. This is the real I AM that you refer too isn't it? There must be a thought of itself being awareness itself, there cannot be a knowing beyond mind or beyond thought . Unless this is one of those direct knowings or Truthy knowings  |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 14, 2020 7:23:23 GMT -5
You said that pure awareness knowing itself is prior to I Am .. but there was awareness of I AM prior to their being awareness of anything ego related .. In normal activity the I Am sense regardless of whether it is attached to a thought such as I am happy, I am hungry, is mixed together with the real unbounded I which is pure awareness. The sense of I am is not pure awareness. In nirvikalpa samadhi there is no sense of I am. But awareness does not need the I Am sense to know that it is. Yet the I Am sense preceded it and it will also proceed it. Awareness is the ultimate subject which knows itself. It doesn't require mind to know that it is. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 7:40:37 GMT -5
You said that pure awareness knowing itself is prior to I Am .. but there was awareness of I AM prior to their being awareness of anything ego related .. In normal activity the I Am sense regardless of whether it is attached to a thought such as I am happy, I am hungry, is mixed together with the real unbounded I which is pure awareness. The sense of I am is not pure awareness. In nirvikalpa samadhi there is no sense of I am. But awareness does not need the I Am sense to know that it is. Yet the I Am sense preceded it and it will also proceed it. Awareness is the ultimate subject which knows itself. It doesn't require mind to know that it is. I get it that the 'I am' this or that is not present in N.S. there is the real 'I' as ramana put it . I have been using my foundational thought that I AM is present of this world prior to an ego thought that I AM a man or a human . This is why I have said that a self reference is an extension of the I AM foundation . Like said speaking along the line of the real I is awareness is problematic because it isn't realized is it . Awareness of I AM is realized because it is self evident . This is why when we speak about beyond I am this and that we can't actually say that the real I is awareness can we . We are using mindful ways and means to explain beyond those ways and means . This is why of the mind one can only say that I AM aware .. awareness itself doesn't relate to anything mindful does it and yet it's used a statement of fact isn't it in some circles . Awareness itself knowing itself as that just rings a lot of alarm bells for me especially when there can only be an I am / self reference had of that . This is what andy and I was speaking about here regarding mindful and wordy descriptors used, and of course you know this too well yourself . The problem is that there has been an association made to what we are that is awareness beyond the awareness of I am while there is experience of this beyond that sense . When I had my beyond mind realization there was no 'pure awareness knowing itself as that' yet what you are was present . I can only say that this knowing of itself is mindful and if its mindful there has to be I AM present or the real I as ramana put it . |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 14, 2020 7:52:47 GMT -5
In normal activity the I Am sense regardless of whether it is attached to a thought such as I am happy, I am hungry, is mixed together with the real unbounded I which is pure awareness. The sense of I am is not pure awareness. In nirvikalpa samadhi there is no sense of I am. But awareness does not need the I Am sense to know that it is. Yet the I Am sense preceded it and it will also proceed it. Awareness is the ultimate subject which knows itself. It doesn't require mind to know that it is. I get it that the 'I am' this or that is not present in N.S. there is the real 'I' as ramana put it . I have been using my foundational thought that I AM is present of this world prior to an ego thought that I AM a man or a human . This is why I have said that a self reference is an extension of the I AM foundation . Like said speaking along the line of the real I is awareness is problematic because it isn't realized is it . Awareness of I AM is realized because it is self evident . This is why when we speak about beyond I am this and that we can't actually say that the real I is awareness can we . We are using mindful ways and means to explain beyond those ways and means . This is why of the mind one can only say that I AM aware .. awareness itself doesn't relate to anything mindful does it and yet it's used a statement of fact isn't it in some circles . Awareness itself knowing itself as that just rings a lot of alarm bells for me especially when there can only be an I am / self reference had of that . This is what andy and I was speaking about here regarding mindful and wordy descriptors used, and of course you know this too well yourself . The problem is that there has been an association made to what we are that is awareness beyond the awareness of I am while there is experience of this beyond that sense . When I had my beyond mind realization there was no 'pure awareness knowing itself as that' yet what you are was present . I can only say that this knowing of itself is mindful and if its mindful there has to be I AM present or the real I as ramana put it . I'm not saying anything different to you when you said this: 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 .I am also saying YOU ARE IT regarding awareness. So if you are it then you don't need the I am sense to know you are it. If you experience, I Am frustrated, and the frustration disappears there is still the I Am sense. Step back from that and it defocusses and dissolves. Now we have pure awareness without I Am sense, only awareness that is wide awake to itself. But I will go further. It is also possible to even drop pure awareness and there is only the abyss of the absolute which is beyond both experience and non experience. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 8:07:40 GMT -5
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? I think the 'I am' stays fully present during a faint and deep sleep, because the body still functions. I do fully understand that the comparison is made after the event, but I don't think the comparison could be made without a subtle 'registering' during the event itself. After the event you knew it wasn't just a deep sleep, or a health episode. You were able to say...''hmmm, that was different'' |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 8:19:44 GMT -5
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 .. Yep, I understand and get that you were only able to experience comparisons AFTER the event...the ability to experience comparisons requires a high degree of mindfulness. I think the crux of the slight disagreement probably relates to a difference in our understanding of 'mind'. So I would say mind runs very very deep...all the way to Source itself. And 'I am' can be found at all levels of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 8:34:06 GMT -5
I get it that the 'I am' this or that is not present in N.S. there is the real 'I' as ramana put it . I have been using my foundational thought that I AM is present of this world prior to an ego thought that I AM a man or a human . This is why I have said that a self reference is an extension of the I AM foundation . Like said speaking along the line of the real I is awareness is problematic because it isn't realized is it . Awareness of I AM is realized because it is self evident . This is why when we speak about beyond I am this and that we can't actually say that the real I is awareness can we . We are using mindful ways and means to explain beyond those ways and means . This is why of the mind one can only say that I AM aware .. awareness itself doesn't relate to anything mindful does it and yet it's used a statement of fact isn't it in some circles . Awareness itself knowing itself as that just rings a lot of alarm bells for me especially when there can only be an I am / self reference had of that . This is what andy and I was speaking about here regarding mindful and wordy descriptors used, and of course you know this too well yourself . The problem is that there has been an association made to what we are that is awareness beyond the awareness of I am while there is experience of this beyond that sense . When I had my beyond mind realization there was no 'pure awareness knowing itself as that' yet what you are was present . I can only say that this knowing of itself is mindful and if its mindful there has to be I AM present or the real I as ramana put it . I'm not saying anything different to you when you said this: 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 .I am also saying YOU ARE IT regarding awareness. So if you are it then you don't need the I am sense to know you are it. If you experience, I Am frustrated, and the frustration disappears there is still the I Am sense. Step back from that and it defocusses and dissolves. Now we have pure awareness without I Am sense, only awareness that is wide awake to itself. But I will go further. It is also possible to even drop pure awareness and there is only the abyss of the absolute which is beyond both experience and non experience. But the difference is when I say 'YOU ARE IT', I am not implying that the real 'I' is present or that what you are is pure awareness, aware of itself as that, knowing that . This perhaps emphasises and illustrates that what I have been speaking of is not N.S. (and for the record I have never implied that it was N.S.) . All I know and have the comparison for is awareness of I AM and not and when I AM is absent there is no knowing of anything and yet what you are is present . I think there has been confusion here because there has been the associations made in that what I experienced was likened to Tolle's C.C. and likened to N.S. Many things don't add up with what other's have said and this is the reason, but it's no surprise because I dare say everyone even agrees to what N.S. is or what S.R. is or S.S is . I can only go by what happened in my regards and what resulted in so to speak . If it is true enough to say that N.S. reflects pure awareness and awareness knows of itself as that then it has to be mindful in my book based upon the absence of knowing that I refer to as being beyond mind . When you say Awareness is the ultimate subject which knows itself points to a subject which is why I mentioned I AM is still present . I am trying to tie in a subject without I AM being present . If there is a subject still then there is mind, if it doesn't require mind to know itself then it must require something to be present because beyond the subject and beyond the knowing that it is pure awareness there is what you are still hehehe .. If it is not mind that is present then I don't know what else to call it . Something is present isn't it . Perhaps awareness at this point is sufficient in a way where it is beyond mind but there has to be this state attained for it to know itself, but knowing and states are mindful so perhaps it just won't work for me .. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 14, 2020 8:38:18 GMT -5
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? I think the 'I am' stays fully present during a faint and deep sleep, because the body still functions. I do fully understand that the comparison is made after the event, but I don't think the comparison could be made without a subtle 'registering' during the event itself. After the event you knew it wasn't just a deep sleep, or a health episode. You were able to say...''hmmm, that was different'' Why would your body need the I Am sense during sleep to keep your heart beating and your lungs breathing? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 8:45:45 GMT -5
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? I think the 'I am' stays fully present during a faint and deep sleep, because the body still functions. I do fully understand that the comparison is made after the event, but I don't think the comparison could be made without a subtle 'registering' during the event itself. After the event you knew it wasn't just a deep sleep, or a health episode. You were able to say...''hmmm, that was different'' So are you agreeing with me that when you sleep and when you faint the Self or the Sun in totality isn't present? You asked me how do I know that I wasn't asleep or had fainted .. I do understand why you say what you say about the subtle registering but as I see it, the sun in totality has to make sense when I AM isn't present . As Satch said, it's all Self .. in a way it feels as if it's put across in that when I AM leaves the building Self has too .. When you turn the lights off you don't see anything .. when the light's turned on you do . What your suggesting is that your still seeing something when the lights are off . |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 14, 2020 8:53:50 GMT -5
I'm not saying anything different to you when you said this: I am also saying YOU ARE IT regarding awareness. So if you are it then you don't need the I am sense to know you are it. If you experience, I Am frustrated, and the frustration disappears there is still the I Am sense. Step back from that and it defocusses and dissolves. Now we have pure awareness without I Am sense, only awareness that is wide awake to itself. But I will go further. It is also possible to even drop pure awareness and there is only the abyss of the absolute which is beyond both experience and non experience. But the difference is when I say 'YOU ARE IT', I am not implying that the real 'I' is present or that what you are is pure awareness, aware of itself as that, knowing that . This perhaps emphasises and illustrates that what I have been speaking of is not N.S. (and for the record I have never implied that it was N.S.) . All I know and have the comparison for is awareness of I AM and not and when I AM is absent there is no knowing of anything and yet what you are is present . I think there has been confusion here because there has been the associations made in that what I experienced was likened to Tolle's C.C. and likened to N.S. Many things don't add up with what other's have said and this is the reason, but it's no surprise because I dare say everyone even agrees to what N.S. is or what S.R. is or S.S is . I can only go by what happened in my regards and what resulted in so to speak . If it is true enough to say that N.S. reflects pure awareness and awareness knows of itself as that then it has to be mindful in my book based upon the absence of knowing that I refer to as being beyond mind . When you say Awareness is the ultimate subject which knows itself points to a subject which is why I mentioned I AM is still present . I am trying to tie in a subject without I AM being present . If there is a subject still then there is mind, if it doesn't require mind to know itself then it must require something to be present because beyond the subject and beyond the knowing that it is pure awareness there is what you are still hehehe .. If it is not mind that is present then I don't know what else to call it . Something is present isn't it . Perhaps awareness at this point is sufficient in a way where it is beyond mind but there has to be this state attained for it to know itself, but knowing and states are mindful so perhaps it just won't work for me .. Now we get to the crux of it which is also the sticking point. You state that you are not implying that the real 'I' is present or that what you are is pure awareness, aware of itself as that, knowing that.I am saying precisely that. You are not able to take the mind or I am sense out of the equation of knowing what you are. Pure awareness of samadhi has no sense of self which is the same as the I Am sense. It is just pure awakedness without someone experiencing it even though we are constrained by language by talking about experiencing awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 8:58:30 GMT -5
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 .. Yep, I understand and get that you were only able to experience comparisons AFTER the event...the ability to experience comparisons requires a high degree of mindfulness. I think the crux of the slight disagreement probably relates to a difference in our understanding of 'mind'. So I would say mind runs very very deep...all the way to Source itself. And 'I am' can be found at all levels of mind. For sure we are never going to have the exact same understandings of what vital words mean and represent, and your right in that mind runs deep, this is why I say mind is the entire foundation of the infinite universe for it encompasses everything that is present so to speak . For me however the switch off or cut off point for mind is when there is no I AM awareness, but for you there never is such a switch off point while the body remains . Where we differ also is that the self references that the body cells have are or not dependant on our pop had that relates to I AM. This is why I asked when there is no longer a pop had what has the blood cells got to do with I AM . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 9:13:36 GMT -5
I think the 'I am' stays fully present during a faint and deep sleep, because the body still functions. I do fully understand that the comparison is made after the event, but I don't think the comparison could be made without a subtle 'registering' during the event itself. After the event you knew it wasn't just a deep sleep, or a health episode. You were able to say...''hmmm, that was different'' Why would your body need the I Am sense during sleep to keep your heart beating and your lungs breathing? I don't see a hard line between what we sometimes call 'conscious' and 'sub/unconscious' mind. During sleep and fainting, the sub/unconscious mind is still present, and so 'I am' is still present. So it's more that the aliveness of the organic body is evidence of both 'mind' and 'I am'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 9:19:52 GMT -5
I think the 'I am' stays fully present during a faint and deep sleep, because the body still functions. I do fully understand that the comparison is made after the event, but I don't think the comparison could be made without a subtle 'registering' during the event itself. After the event you knew it wasn't just a deep sleep, or a health episode. You were able to say...''hmmm, that was different'' So are you agreeing with me that when you sleep and when you faint the Self or the Sun in totality isn't present? You asked me how do I know that I wasn't asleep or had fainted .. I do understand why you say what you say about the subtle registering but as I see it, the sun in totality has to make sense when I AM isn't present . As Satch said, it's all Self .. in a way it feels as if it's put across in that when I AM leaves the building Self has too .. When you turn the lights off you don't see anything .. when the light's turned on you do . What your suggesting is that your still seeing something when the lights are off . I don't think 'I am' diminishes or strengthens while the body is alive. I think our capacity to be mindful of 'I am' can vary though (in line with our capacity to experience making comparisons). Way I see it, is that during your event, there would have been notes made at a deep level of mind ('unconscious mind'), so although you couldn't compare at that time, you could compare after |
|
