|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 16, 2020 21:31:34 GMT -5
I mean awareness alone. I don't know how I can be any clearer. 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. YesI 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? Yes I believe that meditation practice/self inquiry is essential to realize the Self for most people. There is only one existential question which is, who am I, and that is resolved by SR. The answer to that question is to be in the natural state, to have peace of mind. Intellectual/ philosophical questions about the nature of reality and the universe have nothing to do with release from the bondage of action. SR won't give you any answers and knowledge about the universe. In fact it will reinforce the fact that you know nothing. In that unknowing is freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2020 11:01:05 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 .. I'm talking about the conversation we're having, but never mind. ZD: "I think he means that he concludes after the fact the difference between the two states." Tenka: "Eggzacly" Tenka: "Where have I suggested two mind states being compared with or too?" |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2020 11:48:25 GMT -5
I remember one of the zen priests at the zendo I attended telling me to burn my books. Ironically, I read similar advice in one of Michael James books, so according to them, you are lucky to have forgotten what you read. I too find these discussions about the intricate details of realization(s) somewhat tedious, but that is not what troubles me and something does trouble me about them. I see the dissection and persistent analysis as a way to disprove one another's claims about SR. There is a very strong undercurrent of personal disdain churning underneath all this. If you follow this site and gab which I do, you will see it play out quite clearly. Occassionally, some semblance of maturity surfaces and there are attempts to reduce the rancor and reconcile viewpoints. Shadowplay, please come back. And occassionally as some have said, real gems of insight push up through the BS. As to SS, it is a state, but according to Ramana, it is the default state, the only "real" state. All other states are overlays of SS. Again according to Ramana, it is permanent for the jnani. Of course, these are mere descriptions of something that is indescribable so inevitably they fall short. I can provide the quotes where he discusses the various states. But truthfully, if you've found happiness in your own way, there is no need. Bill Murray's character burned his books in "Razor's Edge". Always figured it was about kicking-out any crutches and forcing reliance on the inner authority. Doesn't seem much of an issue for anyone over 10 posts 'round here. I'm more pessimistic about availability to inner authority. I also suspect a book burning would't make it more so. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 17, 2020 14:39:33 GMT -5
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 .. I'm talking about the conversation we're having, but never mind. ZD: "I think he means that he concludes after the fact the difference between the two states." Tenka: "Eggzacly" Tenka: "Where have I suggested two mind states being compared with or too?" No worries, wires crossed .. Z.D. spoke about N.S states originally even though my own reference wasn't a state of mind .. I agreed with what Z.D. was saying while using his reference for N.S .. It's too confusing at times trying to readreess peoples premises in relation to mine . It was in this instance easier to agree with Z.D. because I knew what he mean't using his own understanding . |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2020 15:43:59 GMT -5
I'm talking about the conversation we're having, but never mind. ZD: "I think he means that he concludes after the fact the difference between the two states." Tenka: "Eggzacly" Tenka: "Where have I suggested two mind states being compared with or too?" No worries, wires crossed .. Z.D. spoke about N.S states originally even though my own reference wasn't a state of mind .. I agreed with what Z.D. was saying while using his reference for N.S .. It's too confusing at times trying to readreess peoples premises in relation to mine . It was in this instance easier to agree with Z.D. because I knew what he mean't using his own understanding . Okay, no rumble then.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2024 20:28:41 GMT -5
There is only one thingless thing here, and it is the only thing that is aware. All humans are one-with THAT (whether they realize it or not). As SDP pointed out, a baby sees the world and responds to it without reflective thought. The same is true for any adults who have found the intellect's "off" button. I agree with Tolle's statement, "One of the greatest attainments is freedom from the compulsion of incessant thought." I began meditating because of stress caused by incessant thinking, and eventually the body/mind organism became able to remain silently aware of the world without having to think about it. If you have no reference for what's being pointed to, then let's drop the subject or agree to disagree. All I am asking is how can you be aware of the suffering of another for example and not have a thought of it . I haven't had a straight answer . It's impossible to be mindful of something mindful and say there is the transcendence of mind . Who/m or what is aware of the suffering of the mind when the mind has been transcended . It makes no sense at all . I am happy to leave it this time as I did the last time not having a clear explanation of how it is possible .. Your theory about not thinking and thought isn't correct, but as we both know, your idea of what constitutes a thought doesn't seem to make sense to me either and I have given examples to explain why . The fact that I haven't had a clear answer gives me the impression that you can't answer it based upon your model . That's okay, tho, I am still waiting for answers from a few peeps here on the forums to key questions made . I was just poking around the past, not likely I'll find what I was looking for. But just to clarify the clarification, tenka, would you say by thought, you mean any brain-wave activity? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2024 20:39:51 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.pdf Found this in the poking around. Dimensions or a hierarchy of levels of being doesn't negate ND in any way whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 2, 2024 21:37:34 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.pdf Found this in the poking around. Dimensions or a hierarchy of levels of being doesn't negate ND in any way whatsoever. I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2024 8:01:52 GMT -5
Found this in the poking around. Dimensions or a hierarchy of levels of being doesn't negate ND in any way whatsoever. I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? I consider ND in terms of simultaneity. There is an aspect of our being that is always here, always now. The conceptualizing mind is never here now (except in a higher state of consciousness, which nothing can obstruct). I think of thoughts or emotions as horses that wander up. They are fine if they just wander up and then wander away. But we usually get on them and ride off. We *disappear* into the thought or emotion. That means into the past or the future, that means not now, not here. (That means not-present, not-here). That means no simultaneity, no ND. It doesn't matter where the here and now, is. Where depends upon our capacity to take in What Is (here and now). For sdp it's about experience and consciousness, I don't get realization unless realization means understanding. Nobody has ever answered men that question. (It seems it doesn't, as understanding is mind-oriented, ends up as mind-oriented. But it is at least a cousin, because, by definition, once you understand something, that never changes). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 3, 2024 9:00:06 GMT -5
I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? I consider ND in terms of simultaneity. There is an aspect of our being that is always here, always now. The conceptualizing mind is never here now (except in a higher state of consciousness, which nothing can obstruct). I think of thoughts or emotions as horses that wander up. They are fine if they just wander up and then wander away. But we usually get on them and ride off. We *disappear* into the thought or emotion. That means into the past or the future, that means not now, not here. (That means not-present, not-here). That means no simultaneity, no ND. It doesn't matter where the here and now, is. Where depends upon our capacity to take in What Is (here and now). For sdp it's about experience and consciousness, I don't get realization unless realization means understanding. Nobody has ever answered men that question. (It seems it doesn't, as understanding is mind-oriented, ends up as mind-oriented. But it is at least a cousin, because, by definition, once you understand something, that never changes). As E pointed out endlessly, realizations INFORM the mind. This means that after a realization, something is understood that was not understood prior to that event. E considered a realization to be an insight into what is NOT true, and that's certainly correct. However, I used to argue with E that a realization can reveal BOTH what is NOT true but ALSO what IS true. A CC, for example, reveals that reality is NOT what was previously imagined, but it also reveals that what we call "reality" is undivided, infinite, alive, aware, etc. Each realization reveals that some idea to which one was attached is NOT true, and this is then understood by the mind. The ultimate result, if one goes far enough, is peace of mind because what one IS--THIS-- discovers the limits of mind as well as mind's proper function as an aspect of THIS. A sage discovers that a human can never comprehend THIS; s/he can only BE THIS. The living truth cannot be imagined; it can only be lived.  |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 3, 2024 10:52:49 GMT -5
I consider ND in terms of simultaneity. There is an aspect of our being that is always here, always now. The conceptualizing mind is never here now (except in a higher state of consciousness, which nothing can obstruct). I think of thoughts or emotions as horses that wander up. They are fine if they just wander up and then wander away. But we usually get on them and ride off. We *disappear* into the thought or emotion. That means into the past or the future, that means not now, not here. (That means not-present, not-here). That means no simultaneity, no ND. It doesn't matter where the here and now, is. Where depends upon our capacity to take in What Is (here and now). For sdp it's about experience and consciousness, I don't get realization unless realization means understanding. Nobody has ever answered men that question. (It seems it doesn't, as understanding is mind-oriented, ends up as mind-oriented. But it is at least a cousin, because, by definition, once you understand something, that never changes). As E pointed out endlessly, realizations INFORM the mind. This means that after a realization, something is understood that was not understood prior to that event. E considered a realization to be an insight into what is NOT true, and that's certainly correct. However, I used to argue with E that a realization can reveal BOTH what is NOT true but ALSO what IS true. A CC, for example, reveals that reality is NOT what was previously imagined, but it also reveals that what we call "reality" is undivided, infinite, alive, aware, etc. Each realization reveals that some idea to which one was attached is NOT true, and this is then understood by the mind. The ultimate result, if one goes far enough, is peace of mind because what one IS--THIS-- discovers the limits of mind as well as mind's proper function as an aspect of THIS. A sage discovers that a human can never comprehend THIS; s/he can only BE THIS. The living truth cannot be imagined; it can only be lived. Okay, this is where my panties get bunched. I can see being informed you're not a tomato when you're an apple, but once you realize you're an apple, there's no tomato to be informed. It's like the rope is now talking to the snake. Naah. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 3, 2024 11:14:01 GMT -5
As E pointed out endlessly, realizations INFORM the mind. This means that after a realization, something is understood that was not understood prior to that event. E considered a realization to be an insight into what is NOT true, and that's certainly correct. However, I used to argue with E that a realization can reveal BOTH what is NOT true but ALSO what IS true. A CC, for example, reveals that reality is NOT what was previously imagined, but it also reveals that what we call "reality" is undivided, infinite, alive, aware, etc. Each realization reveals that some idea to which one was attached is NOT true, and this is then understood by the mind. The ultimate result, if one goes far enough, is peace of mind because what one IS--THIS-- discovers the limits of mind as well as mind's proper function as an aspect of THIS. A sage discovers that a human can never comprehend THIS; s/he can only BE THIS. The living truth cannot be imagined; it can only be lived. Okay, this is where my panties get bunched. I can see being informed you're not a tomato when you're an apple, but once you realize you're an apple, there's no tomato to be informed. It's like the rope is now talking to the snake. Naah. I'm afraid that analogy does not apply as presented. All there is is THIS, and the intellect, which Is an aspect of THIS, is like a tiny slice of the vast intelligence that is running the show. The mind/intellect is not separate from THIS, but it is how THIS can know ABOUT Itself imaginatively via images, ideas, and symbols. THIS becomes progressively informed regarding the limits of mind via realizations, so the pathless path is one of THIS, in the form of a particular human, letting go of more and more ideas until THIS is discovered by THIS to be all that IS. Ultimately, THIS discovers that what we are--THIS-- is unimaginable. IOW, realizations inform THIS, in the form of a particular human, that all there is is THIS, so there is no tomato, apple, rope, snake, panties to get bunched, or someone whose panties can get bunched except as products of imagination. There is no rope talking to a snake; there is only THIS, and if THIS talks, it talks only to Itself because there is no "other." |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 3, 2024 11:41:01 GMT -5
Okay, this is where my panties get bunched. I can see being informed you're not a tomato when you're an apple, but once you realize you're an apple, there's no tomato to be informed. It's like the rope is now talking to the snake. Naah. I'm afraid that analogy does not apply as presented. All there is is THIS, and the intellect, which Is an aspect of THIS, is like a tiny slioe of the vast intelligence that is running the show. The mind/intellect is not separate from THIS, but it is how THIS can know ABOUT Itself imaginatively via images, ideas, and symbols. THIS becomes progressively informed regarding the limits of mind via realizations, so the pathless path is one of THIS, in the form of a particular human, letting go of more and more ideas until THIS is discovered by THIS to be all that IS. Ultimately, THIS discovers that what we are--THIS-- is unimaginable. IOW, realizations inform THIS, in the form of a particular human, that all there is is THIS, so there is no tomato, apple, rope, snake, panties to get bunched, or someone whose panties can get bunched except as products of imagination. There is no rope talking to a snake; there is only THIS, and if THIS talks, it talks only to Itself because there is no "other." I might agree, but at some point there's noone or no-thing that needs informing since "informing" means tranferring information. And ultimately there was never informing because there never was an informer versus an informed. That's the crux of the delusion. I talk to the dead every night when they come visit and try to "inform" them that we're merely "imagined." That our separateness, hence the need to talk to each other is a delusion. They take it about as well as Tenka does. They think I'm daft. Imagine that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2024 12:16:52 GMT -5
I'm afraid that analogy does not apply as presented. All there is is THIS, and the intellect, which Is an aspect of THIS, is like a tiny slioe of the vast intelligence that is running the show. The mind/intellect is not separate from THIS, but it is how THIS can know ABOUT Itself imaginatively via images, ideas, and symbols. THIS becomes progressively informed regarding the limits of mind via realizations, so the pathless path is one of THIS, in the form of a particular human, letting go of more and more ideas until THIS is discovered by THIS to be all that IS. Ultimately, THIS discovers that what we are--THIS-- is unimaginable. IOW, realizations inform THIS, in the form of a particular human, that all there is is THIS, so there is no tomato, apple, rope, snake, panties to get bunched, or someone whose panties can get bunched except as products of imagination. There is no rope talking to a snake; there is only THIS, and if THIS talks, it talks only to Itself because there is no "other." I might agree, but at some point there's noone or no-thing that needs informing since "informing" means tranferring information. And ultimately there was never informing because there never was an informer versus an informed. That's the crux of the delusion. I talk to the dead every night when they come visit and try to "inform" them that we're merely "imagined." That our separateness, hence the need to talk to each other is a delusion. They take it about as well as Tenka does. They think I'm daft. Imagine that. Yes, exactly, nice. ...I told GM about 2 months ago there is only one context. He latched on to that and kept blasting sdp, he says there is only one context (basically, ha, ha, ha). My meaning was, there is some-One "context", a ~connection of transferring~. There is a mutuality, a kind of resonance. There is ONE, and one enters-in-to-the ONE. This is what I mean by an expansion of consciousness, or a higher state of consciousness. The one enter into the ONE. One-context. I think this is maybe what you are touching on. (For sdp) it's an experience, because it doesn't last. But you, for me, point out what I (still) don't get about a realization. (There seems to be nothing- connecting-in-a-realization, it's like magic fairy dust). I'm calling context that which connects this one with this ONE. Now, I understand ND ~says~ this one and ONE are already connected. Who cares? *I'm* interested in the always-connection, not the realization of always-connected. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 3, 2024 12:36:22 GMT -5
As E pointed out endlessly, realizations INFORM the mind. This means that after a realization, something is understood that was not understood prior to that event. E considered a realization to be an insight into what is NOT true, and that's certainly correct. However, I used to argue with E that a realization can reveal BOTH what is NOT true but ALSO what IS true. A CC, for example, reveals that reality is NOT what was previously imagined, but it also reveals that what we call "reality" is undivided, infinite, alive, aware, etc. Each realization reveals that some idea to which one was attached is NOT true, and this is then understood by the mind. The ultimate result, if one goes far enough, is peace of mind because what one IS--THIS-- discovers the limits of mind as well as mind's proper function as an aspect of THIS. A sage discovers that a human can never comprehend THIS; s/he can only BE THIS. The living truth cannot be imagined; it can only be lived. Okay, this is where my panties get bunched. I can see being informed you're not a tomato when you're an apple, but once you realize you're an apple, there's no tomato to be informed. It's like the rope is now talking to the snake. Naah. Let me try to translate (for ZD). one (small s self) = tomato. ONE = apple. zazeniac is saying once there is a realization you are in actually, apple, the tomato doesn't disappear. In realization the snake disappears but the rope doesn't. I have my own solution for this seeming conundrum, it's quite simple. Maybe zazeniac can elaborate. ........This is tenka's problem also (with the ND view), how can you say there is no person, I'm right here typing to you? |
|
