|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 15, 2020 14:08:12 GMT -5
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 zendancer on Jan 15, 2020 16:12:15 GMT -5
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. How did you know that your true identity was unlimited as a result of samadhi? An ordinary person who entered NS would, upon exit from that state, assume that s/he was a limited entity who had temporarily entered a state where everything disappeared for a while. S/he would know nothing new that would suggest that his/her normal identity was anything other than what it was always imagined to be--a separate self limited by the boundary of the body. [/quote] 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.[/quote] By "total silence" do you mean a total absence of mind talk? If so, had you not previously experienced that kind of total silence during NS? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 15, 2020 17:50:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2020 21:52:22 GMT -5
Can you PM me if you don't want to expose the answer? I am interested to know the answer. I tried to solve it but I couldn't. But I am sure I have heard the same story while I was studying in school but forgotten the answer. You know he cannot leave the sheep alone with the cabbage because the sheep will eat the cabbage. But he can leave the wolf with the cabbage because the wolf will not eat the cabbage. Gopal, master of logic, can figure this out. Make extra effort, you can figure it out. (If anybody else gets it, don't spoil it for Gopal). I was considering the possibility at that time but did not get it, but Now I got it.
First he has to leave the sheep the other side and then at the second round, he has to take the wolf with him, when he leaves the wolf, he has to take the sheep with him back and then he has to leave the sheep and take the cabbage with him and then he has to come back and take the sheep, this way he can make it.
|
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 15, 2020 22:35:18 GMT -5
How did you know that your true identity was unlimited as a result of samadhi? An ordinary person who entered NS would, upon exit from that state, assume that s/he was a limited entity who had temporarily entered a state where everything disappeared for a while. S/he would know nothing new that would suggest that his/her normal identity was anything other than what it was always imagined to be--a separate self limited by the boundary of the body. When I entered samadhi everything did not disappear because there was only awareness and that felt like it was my true home rather than that which was continually changing on the outside. But that temporary experience is not enough to make it stick so going back to ego identification would follow but with the memory or echo of that transcendent unboundedness. Repeated practice means that you bring the value of that unbounded awareness partially back into activity. It is like dyeing the cloth which becomes fully saturated with the color when it is immersed in the dye (awareness) but when it is put in the sun to dry (the field of action) the color fades. So it is necessary to immerse it in the dye once again. With repeated soaking of the cloth there will come a time when it is put into the sun and it fades no more. It is completely saturated, integrated and stabilized with the color. "the jiva, which is in bondage through mental identification with the body, etc., should put forth effort in the form of reflection on the Self in a gradual and sustained manner; and when thus the mind gets destroyed, the jiva would become the Self." Ramana Maharshi "The old gentleman asked Bhagavan whether it was not necessary to go through nirvikalpa samadhi first before attaining to sahaja samadhi. Bhagavan replied: ‘When we have tendencies that we are trying to give up, that is to say when we are still imperfect and have to make conscious efforts to keep the mind one-pointed or free from thought, the thoughtless state which we thus attain is nirvikalpa samadhi. When, through practice, we are always in that state, not going into samadhi and coming out again, that is the sahaja state. In the sahaja state one sees only the Self and one sees the world as a form assumed by the Self." Ramana Maharshi From Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words By "total silence" do you mean a total absence of mind talk? If so, had you not previously experienced that kind of total silence during NS? This total silence was the complete dissolution of any notion of I and was completely thought free awareness/bliss knowing itself. And it was permanent, not temporary. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 16, 2020 0:31:55 GMT -5
You know he cannot leave the sheep alone with the wolf, because the wolf will eat the sheep. You know he cannot leave the sheep alone with the cabbage because the sheep will eat the cabbage. But he can leave the wolf with the cabbage because the wolf will not eat the cabbage. Gopal, master of logic, can figure this out. Make extra effort, you can figure it out. (If anybody else gets it, don't spoil it for Gopal). I was considering the possibility at that time but did not get it, but Now I got it.
First he has to leave the sheep the other side and then at the second round, he has to take the wolf with him, when he leaves the wolf, he has to take the sheep with him back and then he has to leave the sheep and take the cabbage with him and then he has to come back and take the sheep, this way he can make it. Yes. He has to make one extra trip (extra effort) to make it work. You worked it out. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 16, 2020 3:05:27 GMT -5
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 . You agreed with ZD who called them states. All states are mind states. I don't know what you are talking about . I am speaking of my realizations beyond mind in comparison to mindful states . If N.S. is of the mind then it is a mindful state . If N.S. is referring to the ultimate subject aware of itself then it is a mindful state . My beingness / realization wasn't mindful .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 4:21:28 GMT -5
You agreed with ZD who called them states. All states are mind states. I don't know what you are talking about . I am speaking of my realizations beyond mind in comparison to mindful states . If N.S. is of the mind then it is a mindful state . If N.S. is referring to the ultimate subject aware of itself then it is a mindful state . My beingness / realization wasn't mindful ..But, you was definitely there wasn't you? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 16, 2020 6:19:26 GMT -5
If you're really interested in the lady, I suggest reading her book. This account seems far from the truth of what happened to her. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 16, 2020 7:21:48 GMT -5
How did you know that your true identity was unlimited as a result of samadhi? An ordinary person who entered NS would, upon exit from that state, assume that s/he was a limited entity who had temporarily entered a state where everything disappeared for a while. S/he would know nothing new that would suggest that his/her normal identity was anything other than what it was always imagined to be--a separate self limited by the boundary of the body. When I entered samadhi everything did not disappear because there was only awareness and that felt like it was my true home rather than that which was continually changing on the outside. But that temporary experience is not enough to make it stick so going back to ego identification would follow but with the memory or echo of that transcendent unboundedness. Repeated practice means that you bring the value of that unbounded awareness partially back into activity. It is like dyeing the cloth which becomes fully saturated with the color when it is immersed in the dye (awareness) but when it is put in the sun to dry (the field of action) the color fades. So it is necessary to immerse it in the dye once again. With repeated soaking of the cloth there will come a time when it is put into the sun and it fades no more. It is completely saturated, integrated and stabilized with the color. "the jiva, which is in bondage through mental identification with the body, etc., should put forth effort in the form of reflection on the Self in a gradual and sustained manner; and when thus the mind gets destroyed, the jiva would become the Self." Ramana Maharshi "The old gentleman asked Bhagavan whether it was not necessary to go through nirvikalpa samadhi first before attaining to sahaja samadhi. Bhagavan replied: ‘When we have tendencies that we are trying to give up, that is to say when we are still imperfect and have to make conscious efforts to keep the mind one-pointed or free from thought, the thoughtless state which we thus attain is nirvikalpa samadhi. When, through practice, we are always in that state, not going into samadhi and coming out again, that is the sahaja state. In the sahaja state one sees only the Self and one sees the world as a form assumed by the Self." Ramana Maharshi From Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words By "total silence" do you mean a total absence of mind talk? If so, had you not previously experienced that kind of total silence during NS? This total silence was the complete dissolution of any notion of I and was completely thought free awareness/bliss knowing itself. And it was permanent, not temporary. I find your description of your path fascinating, but also surprising. So, when you were in the state of samadhi, you were also aware of the world around you. Is that correct? Did this occur only during sitting meditation? Did you consider that state to be NS? The NS I refer to involves the disappearance of everything, and only empty awareness remains--no thoughts, no sense of selfhood, no sensory perception at all, and no "outside world." In that form of NS there is no sense of either boundedness or unboundedness because there is no sense of anything other than empty awareness. It is, of course, a deeply blissful state, but not one that can be willed into happening. It seems to automatically occur as a result of intense concentration during meditation. In my case, the concentration was either upon the breathing process or upon listening to "universal sound." NS was only one form of what I thought of as a "unity consciousness experience." Being in the zone or having a CC are other forms of what I considered to be unity consciousness experiences, but, like you, I always seemed to return to a "me in here" after such experiences. They were always temporary. I kept wondering how a human could remain in a UC state of mind all the time. In any event that finally occurred as a result of suddenly seeing that the "me"--the imagined sense of being a separate entity--had never existed, that it had been some sort of thought-based illusion. The real me had always been THIS. I suspect that mental silence, alone, would eventually lead to that realization if the silence were sustained for a suitably long enough period of time. Either way, it seems obvious that people attain freedom and unity in many different ways. The reason that E, Reefs, myself, and others put such emphasis upon realizations rather than some sort of gradual process is that we've experienced numerous discontinuous specific events of insight in which various cognitive illusions have been seen through--each realization resulting in increasing clarity and understanding. It seemed to me that periods of mental silence generally preceded such breakthroughs, so I think we'd all agree that some degree of freedom from reflective thought is the most important factor on the path to SR. The Ramana quote is interesting because it suggests that he lived in a state of almost continual mental silence. That hasn't been the case here, but it hasn't seemed to make any difference. After one knows that everything is a manifestation of the Infinite, and that the Infinite is all there is, it doesn't seem to matter whether the mind is talkative or silent because both conditions have only one source. There is only THIS doing whatever it does. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 16, 2020 7:34:45 GMT -5
If you're really interested in the lady, I suggest reading her book. This account seems far from the truth of what happened to her. Oh...I read it years ago. I had read Bernadette Roberts previously (The Experience of No-Self and her next two books, I found out about her 3rd book What Is Self? from a Joseph Chilton Pearce book), and it seemed she had the same experience, or very similar. Bernadette Roberts was able to move on and function very well in life. Suzanne Segal continued to be troubled by no-self. Roberts probably did OK because she had a map, Jesus. She figured that Jesus wasn't unique but that his journey was the journey everyone is to take. And thus she considers the Church has completely gotten Jesus wrong. (I guess you know she died recently, I think about a year ago). There are parallels with Segal and Roberts and my tradition. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 16, 2020 7:54:02 GMT -5
I find your description of your path fascinating, but also surprising. So, when you were in the state of samadhi, you were also aware of the world around you. Is that correct? Did this occur only during sitting meditation? Did you consider that state to be NS? The NS I refer to involves the disappearance of everything, and only empty awareness remains--no thoughts, no sense of selfhood, no sensory perception at all, and no "outside world." If empty awareness alone remains in NS then how is that the disappearance of everything? Empty awareness has not disappeared has it, otherwise you would be unconscious. NS is the thought free state. There is no I and if there is no I there is no world because the world only arises when I arises. I don't know why you are surprised by this. In that form of NS there is no sense of either boundedness or unboundedness because there is no sense of anything other than empty awareness. The sense of empty awareness is what I refer to as unboundedness because awareness is unbounded. If you can sense empty awareness then you can sense unboundedness. Why one attribute and not the other? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 16, 2020 10:31:37 GMT -5
I find your description of your path fascinating, but also surprising. So, when you were in the state of samadhi, you were also aware of the world around you. Is that correct? Did this occur only during sitting meditation? Did you consider that state to be NS? The NS I refer to involves the disappearance of everything, and only empty awareness remains--no thoughts, no sense of selfhood, no sensory perception at all, and no "outside world." If empty awareness alone remains in NS then how is that the disappearance of everything? Empty awareness has not disappeared has it, otherwise you would be unconscious. NS is the thought free state. There is no I and if there is no I there is no world because the world only arises when I arises. I don't know why you are surprised by this. In that form of NS there is no sense of either boundedness or unboundedness because there is no sense of anything other than empty awareness. The sense of empty awareness is what I refer to as unboundedness because awareness is unbounded. If you can sense empty awareness then you can sense unboundedness. Why one attribute and not the other? I'm just trying to understand exactly what you're describing. A mind-talk free state can occur either with consciousness of the world or without. By "thought free" do you mean no mind talk and also no sensory perception? If so, then I understand. In deep samadhi I don't remember any sense of either boundedness or unboundedness, but because there was nothing there other than awareness, I guess we could say that the state was boundless, and I assume that that's what you mean. From my POV there were no discernible attributes at all. I also assume that you were meditating when NS occurred. Is that correct? You stated that when there was total silence, you awakened, but wasn't there total silence each time you entered NS? What changed on that particular occasion? |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 16, 2020 13:19:09 GMT -5
I'm just trying to understand exactly what you're describing. A mind-talk free state can occur either with consciousness of the world or without. By "thought free" do you mean no mind talk and also no sensory perception? If so, then I understand. I mean awareness alone. I don't know how I can be any clearer. In deep samadhi I don't remember any sense of either boundedness or unboundedness, but because there was nothing there other than awareness, I guess we could say that the state was boundless, and I assume that that's what you mean. From my POV there were no discernible attributes at all. This is unnecessarily complicated. Awareness is without boundaries. That is all. I don't want to over analyse it. There are no attributes to awareness. I simply used the word to question why sensing awareness is okay with you but unboundedness is not. They are both just words. How about stillness. Is that an attribute? No it is not. I also assume that you were meditating when NS occurred. Is that correct? Yes You stated that when there was total silence, you awakened, but wasn't there total silence each time you entered NS? What changed on that particular occasion? I cannot really tell you except to say that there was a final leap, a complete pulling in that cannot be quantified. To compare that silence with another silence would be futile. Call it grace. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 16, 2020 13:50:29 GMT -5
I'm just trying to understand exactly what you're describing. A mind-talk free state can occur either with consciousness of the world or without. By "thought free" do you mean no mind talk and also no sensory perception? If so, then I understand. I mean awareness alone. I don't know how I can be any clearer. In deep samadhi I don't remember any sense of either boundedness or unboundedness, but because there was nothing there other than awareness, I guess we could say that the state was boundless, and I assume that that's what you mean. From my POV there were no discernible attributes at all. This is unnecessarily complicated. Awareness is without boundaries. That is all. I don't want to over analyse it. There are no attributes to awareness. I simply used the word to question why sensing awareness is okay with you but unboundedness is not. They are both just words. How about stillness. Is that an attribute? No it is not. I also assume that you were meditating when NS occurred. Is that correct? Yes You stated that when there was total silence, you awakened, but wasn't there total silence each time you entered NS? What changed on that particular occasion? I cannot really tell you except to say that there was a final leap, a complete pulling in that cannot be quantified. To compare that silence with another silence would be futile. Call it grace. Okay. Thanks. My understanding is that NS regularly precipitated by meditation eventually resulted in SR and SS. I can see why someone who followed such a path might assume that meditation is a necessary requirement for anyone seeking the truth. Did you have any serious existential questions along the way, and, if so, were any of them resolved prior to SR, or did they all get resolved via SR? |
|
