|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 15, 2020 11:32:15 GMT -5
I understand what you're attempting to say about Tenka's viewpoint, but what would a "realization state" be? Like Satch, I know what the state of pure awareness is (NS) and the fact that awareness can be aware of itself as awareness in the absence of any self reference (I am), but I have no reference for the idea of a realization state. A realization is not a state; it's an event--a sudden seeing of something that is undeniably evident. This is why I still don't understand exactly what happened to Tenka. A conclusion after the fact is a kind of realization, but what happened prior to that that made him conclude what he concluded? In my case, this body/mind organism had already apprehended the Infinite (actually THIS apprehended Itself because there truly was I am involved in that kind of seeing), so after the illusion of the SVP was seen through, it then became obvious that THIS had been the only actor on the stage all along. Tenka mentioned having had CC's prior to whatever happened, during which he was absent, so perhaps some other sort of event was involved? He made have entered some unusual state because somewhere he implies that duration was involved, but I can't remember the details of his description. Perhaps he can explain a bit further. He claims that whatever happened was not a CC and it was not NS, so I'm curious about what kind of event he's pointing to. tenka probably prefers i use those words, rather than 'event', and I am happy to oblige. My own view is that the concept of 'realization' gets argued about too much. Tenka has one view, you another, Enigma another, Satch another.....and personally, I don't care. If T wants to call that 'realization'....fine. If E wants 'seeing through illusions' to be realization....fine. Satch wants direct experience to be realization....fine. If you want 'seeing what IS' to be counted as a realization....fine. I have some kind of reference for all those, so just don't have great interest in which one is the RIGHT one. Everyone's spirituality is unique (look at Tolle and UG!). At most I would say we can agree on certain generalizations about the nature of spiritual evolution. There are certain ideas that we can agree on, as long as we don't get too specific (though it's fun and interesting to talk about specifics.) 'Peace' is a good example. We all know it's a good thing and relates to spiritual evolution. But we can debate for a year as to whether it is a presence or absence  I know Tenka has had a ton of spiritual insights, experiences and 'realizations' before this 'event'. I used to talk a lot to him before it happened. So conversationally, I've witnessed a change in his expression, understanding and focus of interest, though that somewhat ineffable quality of 'tenkaness personality' is the same. In a good way. FWIW I generally accept E's definition of a realization as equivalent to an insight or sudden seeing of what is NOT true. Our only disagreement concerns what Reefs and I consider CC experiences. We think those experiences might better be conceived as events because from the standpoint of the human having such an experience they do not involve time and there is no personal selfhood involved in them. When they are occurring, it is not known to whom they are occurring. In this sense, they are unity consciousness events. Those kinds of events usually result in major realizations that are only cognized intellectually after the events have ended (after selfhood returns). A human having such an event realizes that reality is unified, aware, infinite, incomprehensible to the intellect, etc. S/he knows that reality is NOT what was previously imagined (that what was imagined was an illusion), so I think that meets E's definition of a realization. Satch apparently has had only one realization that he considers SR. I assume that it, too, would fit E's definition because it apparently revealed to Satch that he was not a limited being, but was Source, or Self--the undivided and infinite field of awareness in which, or by which, everything is experienced. He can correct me if this interpretation is erroneous. I would say that he was previously under the illusion of being a separate limited entity and his realization revealed that that was not true. If someone wanted to call that "a direct experience" then that's the kind of experience Reefs and I refer to as a CC and it could either be considered a direct experience or an event. In either case, it makes one understand that the nature of reality is different than what was previously imagined. In Tenka's case I do not know what he is referring to when he talks about being "beyond mind." Was he unconscious? Was he conscious but all appearances, thoughts, and selfhood disappeared? Did he enter some kind of state that had duration in time? Would he agree with the Niz quote that JLY posted? Perhaps he can explain more in a future post. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 15, 2020 12:23:53 GMT -5
FWIW I generally accept E's definition of a realization as equivalent to an insight or sudden seeing of what is NOT true. Our only disagreement concerns what Reefs and I consider CC experiences. We think those experiences might better be conceived as events because from the standpoint of the human having such an experience they do not involve time and there is no personal selfhood involved in them. It seems to me that an insight and a CC experience are the same. I doubt whether enigma would agree that his insight/realization includes personal selfhood, whereas your CC does not. Satch apparently has had only one realization that he considers SR. I assume that it, too, would fit E's definition because it apparently revealed to Satch that he was not a limited being, but was Source, or Self--the undivided and infinite field of awareness in which, or by which, everything is experienced. I knew that I was source/unbounded awareness decades before Realization. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 15, 2020 12:39:52 GMT -5
You agreed with ZD who called them states. All states are mind states. What do you call a state that isn't a mind state? E's paradigm is too simple to cover everyone's POV. When there is disagreement we can say we are right and everybody else is wrong, or we can look for a way to accommodate other views, basically other contexts for experience and realizations. Virtually nobody likes Ken Wilber here, or Aurobindo, as these have a complex view of What Is. More specifically, these essentially discuss hierarchy of levels of being. IOW, there are stages of the ~movement~ of consciousness, and concerning each stage there are states of consciousness within the stage. The distinction is that states of consciousness can come and go, but there is a kind of stability (my word, sdp) within a certain stage. That is, once one has reached a certain stage of consciousness one does not 'fall back' from it, but one can experience different states of consciousness within a certain stage. For me such a "paradigm" is necessary to explain different views and different experiences in life, why there is such a broad range of people on the planet. This doesn't negate ND. But nobody likes to discuss this, so I don't push it, just bring it up from time to time. The link is the beginning of a simple explanation of the complex view of Wilber. www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/G-states%20and%20stages.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 15, 2020 12:57:05 GMT -5
What do you call a state that isn't a mind state? E's paradigm is too simple to cover everyone's POV. When there is disagreement we can say we are right and everybody else is wrong, or we can look for a way to accommodate other views, basically other contexts for experience and realizations. Virtually nobody likes Ken Wilber here, or Aurobindo, as these have a complex view of What Is. More specifically, these essentially discuss hierarchy of levels of being. IOW, there are stages of the ~movement~ of consciousness, and concerning each stage there are states of consciousness within the stage. The distinction is that states of consciousness can come and go, but there is a kind of stability (my word, sdp) within a certain stage. That is, once one has reached a certain stage of consciousness one does not 'fall back' from it, but one can experience different states of consciousness within a certain stage. For me such a "paradigm" is necessary to explain different views and different experiences in life, why there is such a broad range of people on the planet. This doesn't negate ND. But nobody likes to discuss this, so I don't push it, just bring it up from time to time. The link is the beginning of a simple explanation of the complex view of Wilber. www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/G-states%20and%20stages.pdfMy point was simply about language. Enigma might say that realization is not a state and then I would ask why not? And he would say because a state is temporary and comes and goes whereas waking up doesn't. So I ask what would you call something that isn't a state which doesn't come and go. I don't know what he would say, but I would say, I would call it a state which doesn't come and go. You see, it's just words. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 15, 2020 12:58:48 GMT -5
FWIW I generally accept E's definition of a realization as equivalent to an insight or sudden seeing of what is NOT true. Our only disagreement concerns what Reefs and I consider CC experiences. We think those experiences might better be conceived as events because from the standpoint of the human having such an experience they do not involve time and there is no personal selfhood involved in them. I doubt whether enigma would agree that his insight/realization includes personal selfhood, whereas your CC does not. Satch apparently has had only one realization that he considers SR. I assume that it, too, would fit E's definition because it apparently revealed to Satch that he was not a limited being, but was Source, or Self--the undivided and infinite field of awareness in which, or by which, everything is experienced. decades before Realizstion. CC is experience of the many permutations of source/unbounded, the intricacy of the relations, a kind of 3D jigsaw puzzle. Personal mind cannot encompass or take in the immensity of All That Is, so the personal sense isn't present. Ordinary mind sees the pieces. CC sees the Whole picture. CC later effects the interaction within the (smaller) world of the *personal* self (small s self). This is the meaning of insight and realization. Ordinary small s self mind comes to trust all the pieces fit perfectly together, even though ordinary mind can't {now} see how. This is the meaning of faith. The small s self can sometimes ~sc*ew~ things up, but not really, as there is always another >solution< in the 3D or 4D or 5D world. IOW, small s self can cause detours, but not ...chasms. Of course, all comments welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 15, 2020 13:01:52 GMT -5
E's paradigm is too simple to cover everyone's POV. When there is disagreement we can say we are right and everybody else is wrong, or we can look for a way to accommodate other views, basically other contexts for experience and realizations. Virtually nobody likes Ken Wilber here, or Aurobindo, as these have a complex view of What Is. More specifically, these essentially discuss hierarchy of levels of being. IOW, there are stages of the ~movement~ of consciousness, and concerning each stage there are states of consciousness within the stage. The distinction is that states of consciousness can come and go, but there is a kind of stability (my word, sdp) within a certain stage. That is, once one has reached a certain stage of consciousness one does not 'fall back' from it, but one can experience different states of consciousness within a certain stage. For me such a "paradigm" is necessary to explain different views and different experiences in life, why there is such a broad range of people on the planet. This doesn't negate ND. But nobody likes to discuss this, so I don't push it, just bring it up from time to time. The link is the beginning of a simple explanation of the complex view of Wilber. www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/G-states%20and%20stages.pdfMy point was simply about language. Enigma might say that realization is not a state and then I would ask why not? And he would say because a state is temporary and comes and goes whereas waking up doesn't. So I ask what would you call something that isn't a state which doesn't come and go. I don't know what he would say, but I would say, I would call it a state which doesn't come and go. You see, it's just words. But the words have to refer to something actual, or they are meaningless. (When they don't refer to anything *real*, it's called imagination or psychosis). |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 15, 2020 13:04:50 GMT -5
It seems to me that an insight and a CC experience are the same. I doubt whether enigma would agree that his insight/realization includes personal selfhood, whereas your CC does not. I knew that I was source/unbounded awareness decades before Realizstion. CC is experience of the many permutations of source/unbounded, the intricacy of the relations, a kind of 3D jigsaw puzzle. Personal mind cannot encompass or take in the immensity of All That Is, so the personal sense isn't present. Ordinary mind sees the pieces. CC sees the Whole picture. CC later effects the interaction within the (smaller) world of the *personal* self (small s self). This is the meaning of insight and realization. Ordinary small s self mind comes to trust all the pieces fit perfectly together, even though ordinary mind can't {now} see how. This is the meaning of faith. The small s self can sometimes ~sc*ew~ things up, but not really, as there is always another >solution< in the 3D or 4D or 5D world. IOW, small s self can cause detours, but not ...chasms. Of course, all comments welcome. According to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi these are the seven states of consciousness: Sleep Dream Waking Transcendental consciousness (samadhi) Cosmic consciousness (Self Realization) God consciousness Unity consciousness |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 15, 2020 13:08:59 GMT -5
My point was simply about language. Enigma might say that realization is not a state and then I would ask why not? And he would say because a state is temporary and comes and goes whereas waking up doesn't. So I ask what would you call something that isn't a state which doesn't come and go. I don't know what he would say, but I would say, I would call it a state which doesn't come and go. You see, it's just words. But the words have to refer to something actual, or they are meaningless. (When they don't refer to anything *real*, it's called imagination or psychosis). Well that's just it. There is no actual meaning of a non changing state of awareness apart from the experience of it. And if I want to call it a state it doesn't change anything or make any difference whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 15, 2020 13:27:19 GMT -5
FWIW I generally accept E's definition of a realization as equivalent to an insight or sudden seeing of what is NOT true. Our only disagreement concerns what Reefs and I consider CC experiences. We think those experiences might better be conceived as events because from the standpoint of the human having such an experience they do not involve time and there is no personal selfhood involved in them. It seems to me that an insight and a CC experience are the same. I doubt whether enigma would agree that his insight/realization includes personal selfhood, whereas your CC does not. Satch apparently has had only one realization that he considers SR. I assume that it, too, would fit E's definition because it apparently revealed to Satch that he was not a limited being, but was Source, or Self--the undivided and infinite field of awareness in which, or by which, everything is experienced. I knew that I was source/unbounded awareness decades before Realization. Then what was realized? Or, was your earlier knowing intellectual and the final SR direct? |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 15, 2020 13:35:07 GMT -5
It seems to me that an insight and a CC experience are the same. I doubt whether enigma would agree that his insight/realization includes personal selfhood, whereas your CC does not.I knew that I was source/unbounded awareness decades before Realization. Then what was realized? Or, was your earlier knowing intellectual and the final SR direct? No the earlier knowing was direct but it can take years until the day comes when I is destroyed and the Self is realized. It is not enough to simply apperceive the infinite. It won't stick without continually going back to source. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 15, 2020 13:43:32 GMT -5
CC is experience of the many permutations of source/unbounded, the intricacy of the relations, a kind of 3D jigsaw puzzle. Personal mind cannot encompass or take in the immensity of All That Is, so the personal sense isn't present. Ordinary mind sees the pieces. CC sees the Whole picture. CC later effects the interaction within the (smaller) world of the *personal* self (small s self). This is the meaning of insight and realization. Ordinary small s self mind comes to trust all the pieces fit perfectly together, even though ordinary mind can't {now} see how. This is the meaning of faith. The small s self can sometimes ~sc*ew~ things up, but not really, as there is always another >solution< in the 3D or 4D or 5D world. IOW, small s self can cause detours, but not ...chasms. Of course, all comments welcome. According to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi these are the seven states of consciousness: Sleep Dream Waking Transcendental consciousness (samadhi) Cosmic consciousness (Self Realization) God consciousness Unity consciousness That's interesting. I assume that his "Unity Consciousness" is the same as SS. Is that the way you understand it? Or, do you think he meant that even temporary states of unity consciousness were the same as a continuous state? I also wonder how he would have categorized an OOBE in which consciousness of the world occurs from a location outside of a body? |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 15, 2020 13:48:45 GMT -5
According to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi these are the seven states of consciousness: Sleep Dream Waking Transcendental consciousness (samadhi) Cosmic consciousness (Self Realization) God consciousness Unity consciousness That's interesting. I assume that his "Unity Consciousness" is the same as SS. Is that the way you understand it? Or, do you think he meant that even temporary states of unity consciousness were the same as a continuous state? I also wonder how he would have categorized an OOBE in which consciousness of the world occurs from a location outside of a body? After SR, which he called CC, which is not the same as the way the you use it, no further practice is required to get to GC and UC. It happens naturally as a kind of maturing process. I never heard him speak of OOBE. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 15, 2020 13:50:03 GMT -5
Then what was realized? Or, was your earlier knowing intellectual and the final SR direct? No the earlier knowing was direct but it can take years until the day comes when I is destroyed and the Self is realized. It is not enough to simply apperceive the infinite. It won't stick without continually going back to source. By "going back to Source," what do you mean? By repeatedly entering NS? By having more CC's? By doing something else? On the day that SR occurred, did the sense of having a personal identity cease? Did identity shift from limited to unlimited? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 15, 2020 13:51:55 GMT -5
That's interesting. I assume that his "Unity Consciousness" is the same as SS. Is that the way you understand it? Or, do you think he meant that even temporary states of unity consciousness were the same as a continuous state? I also wonder how he would have categorized an OOBE in which consciousness of the world occurs from a location outside of a body? After SR, which he called CC, which is not the same as the way the you use it, no further practice is required to get to GC and UC. It happens naturally as a kind of maturing process. I never heard him speak of OOBE. How did he describe the difference between GC and UC? |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 15, 2020 14:05:07 GMT -5
No the earlier knowing was direct but it can take years until the day comes when I is destroyed and the Self is realized. It is not enough to simply apperceive the infinite. It won't stick without continually going back to source. By "going back to Source," what do you mean? By repeatedly entering NS? By having more CC's? By doing something else? On the day that SR occurred, did the sense of having a personal identity cease? Did identity shift from limited to unlimited? What you call CC has no meaning for me in a practice context. The important thing for me was a deepening of pure awareness. I already knew early on that my true identity was not limited because of samadhi. But it was temporary, there was still attachment and suffering even though I could experience the unbounded. What changed was the day when I experienced complete and total silence, when any notion of a limited sense of I was completely dissolved into that silence. It would never be the same again because in an instant I went from that temporary experience to a permanent "state" of sahaja samadhi where there is the simultaneous experience of pure awareness, mind, limited self all existing together, integrated without conflict, difference or separation, peace of mind and the end of suffering. |
|
