|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2020 12:42:34 GMT -5
@ Ouroboros:I thought I better look up a couple of terms in an actual Sanskrit dictionary and here is what I've found: @ ZD: [/b] Here's what I've found about samadhi. It seems to me that samadhi is just describing a state of mental coherence or as I would call it, alignment. And so the different 'levels' of samadhi would then be different 'levels' of coherence/alignment. What's your take on this? [/quote] That's sounds about right to me. Any kind of samadhi is a unified state of mind or an absorbed state of mind. The depth of the absorption is what seems to differentiate various kinds of samadhi. Getting absorbed in a movie or a book is relatively lightweight, but falling "into the zone" seems to be much deeper (most people refer to those experiences as "mystical" because the body is able to do things in that state that would otherwise be impossible), and NS is clearly the deepest state of all. What's interesting about NS is that one can feel the process of unification taking place as it occurs, and it's a bit like getting sucked into a black hole--almost like a gravitational attraction takes over at a certain point--just before everything disappears. The state is felt and remembered to be blissful and deeply peaceful, but not much more can be said about it. FWIW, I'm not crazy about the word "trance" as it relates to NS because awareness is crystal clear though without content. The word "trance" has connotations that don't seem to apply, although from the outside it might appear that they do.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 11, 2020 13:10:33 GMT -5
@ ZD:Here's what I've found about samadhi. It seems to me that samadhi is just describing a state of mental coherence or as I would call it, alignment. And so the different 'levels' of samadhi would then be different 'levels' of coherence/alignment. What's your take on this? That's sounds about right to me. Any kind of samadhi is a unified state of mind or an absorbed state of mind. The depth of the absorption is what seems to differentiate various kinds of samadhi. Getting absorbed in a movie or a book is relatively lightweight, but falling "into the zone" seems to be much deeper (most people refer to those experiences as "mystical" because the body is able to do things in that state that would otherwise be impossible), and NS is clearly the deepest state of all. What's interesting about NS is that one can feel the process of unification taking place as it occurs, and it's a bit like getting sucked into a black hole--almost like a gravitational attraction takes over at a certain point--just before everything disappears. The state is felt and remembered to be blissful and deeply peaceful, but not much more can be said about it. FWIW, I'm not crazy about the word "trance" as it relates to NS because awareness is crystal clear though without content. The word "trance" has connotations that don't seem to apply, although from the outside it might appear that they do. Okay, thanks. The different levels of samadhi then somewhat match the different levels of flow. Shallow levels of flow still happen on the personal level (clear sense of self/skills and objective). Deep levels of flow only happen on the impersonal level (no sense of self, no sense of time, non-doing, sometimes also no memory). NS doesn't fit into the flow theory, of course. But based on what you are saying, it seems that NS is what the term sat-chit-ananda is referring to. We probably shouldn't assume that these translators (linguists) all have a direct reference for what these sanskrit terms actually refer to. That's why it's interesting to see how terms like samadhi are used in other contexts.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 12, 2020 13:22:30 GMT -5
Okay, thanks for elaborating. Not the particular tree I was barking up then, but interesting nonetheless. I'm wondering if they're listed in order, I'm guessing so, as you mention the last (bliss) is considered the most difficult. Yet for some reason number 2 is something I usually would consider to be 'finer' than the others. Re: sat-chit-ananda, beats me. But I'm pretty sure the fella by that moniker who used to post here would disagree, I think his position was that it's the very nature of what's normally talked about in terms of Self.
I spose 'without attributes' would put Self as akin to Awareness/Godhead in those other models then, and as prior to God/Being.
I would put it into a different order as well, especially #4 seems out of place. I think Waite didn't translate it correctly. Here's what I've found elsewhere: That's definitely not the intellect! Also: Now, that's the intellect! Yes, the way I tend to use the phrase 'mind' there would be no real difference between that and intellect, or at most, intellect might be a subset of mind - mind being an umbrella term including thought etc, with intellect perhaps pertaining more specifically to something like conceptualisation. If I can make that distinction. So, I think you're right about his translation, because the description given of buddhi is clearly something other than that anyway, something more primary, more subtle and refined, hence him at least putting it prior to mind in his ordering. Actually that definition of buddhi you've found is very interesting, and describes something that doesn't seem to come up that often on the forums. Going back to prana briefly, the first two definitions that came up when googled are as follows; (Obviously that latter part of that second definition might be contentious ), but as I mentioned before, I would've considered prana as potentially being somehow finer than the others, or at least considering those definitions, it's hard to fathom how he's positioned it where he has, i.e. between body and mind.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 12, 2020 13:46:50 GMT -5
@ Ouroboros:I thought I better look up a couple of terms in an actual Sanskrit dictionary and here is what I've found: There seem to be some overlaps here. So I also looked up what Sri Yukteswar had to say about this, and according to him, manas (mind) will lead man into deeper delusion but buddhi (intelligence, wisdom) will lead man into liberation. So this seems to confirm Waite's translation again. Yes, they are more comprehensive definitions, and aligns with the way I tend to use 'mind' (as an umbrella term), perhaps pertaining to what zd refers to as 'the monkey mind'. I.e. something courser, …. I might even say, perhaps something [commonly] 'tainted' by a degree of ignorance, although that might not be popular. With buddhi seemingly pertaining to the seat of that, something finer, more divine. As you say, there are overlaps, but that’s understandable. The lines being drawn are necessarily malleable. So Yukteswar's input tracks for me, (although I'm still not sure 4 and 6, along with 'belief' aren't being misapplied in the buddhi definition).
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 12, 2020 14:50:14 GMT -5
Just briefly weighing in on samadhi, I'd noticed in Buddhist circles they seem to mostly talk about it in relation to meditation, and specifically single pointed focus. So it tends to be associated with concentration, and usually in the context of vipassana meditation, which is about seeing things as they really are.
They also talk in terms of absorption, and as an abiding, i.e. that it's an auspicious state toward that end (vipassana). In fact, in Buddhism it's considered as essential.
Samadhi is the eighth step in the Noble Eightfold Path, also known as 'right concentration'.
It seems to come about through the quieting of 'the monkey mind'.
It's cultivation is synonymous with the jhanas (meditative absorptions).
Accordingly, it's also considered there are varying degrees of the state of samadhi, with the highest being Nirodha-Samapatti, (nirodha meaning cessation; disbanding; stopping, ... and samapatti frequently used as a synonym for samadhi). This appears to be equivalent to NS.
So overall I agree with you guys' characterisation.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 12, 2020 15:28:00 GMT -5
Just briefly weighing in on samadhi, I'd noticed in Buddhist circles they seem to mostly talk about it in relation to meditation, and specifically single pointed focus. So it tends to be associated with concentration, and usually in the context of vipassana meditation, which is about seeing things as they really are. They also talk in terms of absorption, and as an abiding, i.e. that it's an auspicious state toward that end (vipassana). In fact, in Buddhism it's considered as essential. Samadhi is the eighth step in the Noble Eightfold Path, also known as 'right concentration'. It seems to come about through the quieting of 'the monkey mind'. It's cultivation is synonymous with the jhanas (meditative absorptions). Accordingly, it's also considered there are varying degrees of the state of samadhi, with the highest being Nirodha-Samapatti, (nirodha meaning cessation; disbanding; stopping, ... and samapatti frequently used as a synonym for samadhi). This appears to be equivalent to NS. So overall I agree with you guys' characterisation. Yes, many Buddhist masters, especially in the Zen tradition, consider NS essential, but from my meetings with people who have found "the solid ground of being," and from reading dozens (if not hundreds) of biographies of sages, that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for awakening. I know one teacher who emphasizes the fact that his monkey mind never slowed down, and he never entered deep states of meditative absorption, but he nevertheless found what he was looking for. I also know other ND teachers who had significant realizations and saw through the concensus paradigm illusion without entering NS, so apparently NS is only a trigger-type event for particular people. In the Zen tradition many meditators experience kensho following NS, so deep meditative absorption obviously is a significant factor on some peoples' paths. Out of curiosity, how do people define or describe nirodha-samapatti? I wonder if that's synonymous with Waite's sthiti samadhi and Ramana's sahaja samadhi?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 13, 2020 6:25:00 GMT -5
Just briefly weighing in on samadhi, I'd noticed in Buddhist circles they seem to mostly talk about it in relation to meditation, and specifically single pointed focus. So it tends to be associated with concentration, and usually in the context of vipassana meditation, which is about seeing things as they really are. They also talk in terms of absorption, and as an abiding, i.e. that it's an auspicious state toward that end (vipassana). In fact, in Buddhism it's considered as essential. Samadhi is the eighth step in the Noble Eightfold Path, also known as 'right concentration'. It seems to come about through the quieting of 'the monkey mind'. It's cultivation is synonymous with the jhanas (meditative absorptions). Accordingly, it's also considered there are varying degrees of the state of samadhi, with the highest being Nirodha-Samapatti, (nirodha meaning cessation; disbanding; stopping, ... and samapatti frequently used as a synonym for samadhi). This appears to be equivalent to NS. So overall I agree with you guys' characterisation. Yes, many Buddhist masters, especially in the Zen tradition, consider NS essential, but from my meetings with people who have found "the solid ground of being," and from reading dozens (if not hundreds) of biographies of sages, that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for awakening. I know one teacher who emphasizes the fact that his monkey mind never slowed down, and he never entered deep states of meditative absorption, but he nevertheless found what he was looking for. I also know other ND teachers who had significant realizations and saw through the concensus paradigm illusion without entering NS, so apparently NS is only a trigger-type event for particular people. In the Zen tradition many meditators experience kensho following NS, so deep meditative absorption obviously is a significant factor on some peoples' paths. Out of curiosity, how do people define or describe nirodha-samapatti? I wonder if that's synonymous with Waite's sthiti samadhi and Ramana's sahaja samadhi? I honestly can't imagine discovering the existential truth without the temporary interruption of monkey mind. But - and while this is funny, I also mean it sincerely - anything is possible! That said, I'd also opine that if someone like that wanted to open up, in self-honesty, they might discover something very significant, in that cessation.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 13, 2020 12:26:38 GMT -5
Yes, many Buddhist masters, especially in the Zen tradition, consider NS essential, but from my meetings with people who have found "the solid ground of being," and from reading dozens (if not hundreds) of biographies of sages, that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for awakening. I know one teacher who emphasizes the fact that his monkey mind never slowed down, and he never entered deep states of meditative absorption, but he nevertheless found what he was looking for. I also know other ND teachers who had significant realizations and saw through the concensus paradigm illusion without entering NS, so apparently NS is only a trigger-type event for particular people. In the Zen tradition many meditators experience kensho following NS, so deep meditative absorption obviously is a significant factor on some peoples' paths. Out of curiosity, how do people define or describe nirodha-samapatti? I wonder if that's synonymous with Waite's sthiti samadhi and Ramana's sahaja samadhi? I honestly can't imagine discovering the existential truth without the temporary interruption of monkey mind. But - and while this is funny, I also mean it sincerely - anything is possible! That said, I'd also opine that if someone like that wanted to open up, in self-honesty, they might discover something very significant, in that cessation. Well, it's hard to know exactly what some people have seen, and how deeply they've seen into the nature of THIS, but from what I can discern various people have discovered the truth in spite of a talkative mind and without ever entering states like NS. I think deep sustained silence is highly correlated with seeing through the consensus paradigm, but it doesn't seem to be absolutely necessary. As one example, just think about Paul Morgan-Somers, who, without any meditation or self-enquiry suddenly fell into the ocean of THIS. Or Ramana, for that matter. It may be that deep sustained silence is far more necessary for people who are already strongly attached to a particular conception of reality, but even here there are unique instances that don't fit the usual pattern. I'll post some writings when I get a chance that illustrate this.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 13, 2020 12:52:35 GMT -5
Just briefly weighing in on samadhi, I'd noticed in Buddhist circles they seem to mostly talk about it in relation to meditation, and specifically single pointed focus. So it tends to be associated with concentration, and usually in the context of vipassana meditation, which is about seeing things as they really are. They also talk in terms of absorption, and as an abiding, i.e. that it's an auspicious state toward that end (vipassana). In fact, in Buddhism it's considered as essential. Samadhi is the eighth step in the Noble Eightfold Path, also known as 'right concentration'. It seems to come about through the quieting of 'the monkey mind'. It's cultivation is synonymous with the jhanas (meditative absorptions). Accordingly, it's also considered there are varying degrees of the state of samadhi, with the highest being Nirodha-Samapatti, (nirodha meaning cessation; disbanding; stopping, ... and samapatti frequently used as a synonym for samadhi). This appears to be equivalent to NS. So overall I agree with you guys' characterisation. Yes, many Buddhist masters, especially in the Zen tradition, consider NS essential, but from my meetings with people who have found "the solid ground of being," and from reading dozens (if not hundreds) of biographies of sages, that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for awakening. I know one teacher who emphasizes the fact that his monkey mind never slowed down, and he never entered deep states of meditative absorption, but he nevertheless found what he was looking for. I also know other ND teachers who had significant realizations and saw through the concensus paradigm illusion without entering NS, so apparently NS is only a trigger-type event for particular people. In the Zen tradition many meditators experience kensho following NS, so deep meditative absorption obviously is a significant factor on some peoples' paths. Out of curiosity, how do people define or describe nirodha-samapatti? I wonder if that's synonymous with Waite's sthiti samadhi and Ramana's sahaja samadhi? Firstly a quick correction: In my previous post I referred to nirodha samapatti as being the highest state of samadhi. I should've said the deepest, in keeping with a quote you supplied a few weeks back where someone, (possibly niz) was talking in terms of SS being the highest and NS being the deepest state of samadhi. A point I concurred with at the time. (Incidentally, I'm not sure if there is an equivalent to SS in Buddhism, but it always seems quite akin to nibbana to me). Going on to address your query, I didn't mean to convey that NS would be essential for clear seeing per se. In the Buddhist hierarchy it appears to be almost 'beyond' vipassana. To give a bit of context, as I mentioned, the eighth step in the eightfold path pertains to samadhi in relation to vipassana meditation. However, I think (certainly initially) this is more about cultivating an auspicious state to glean penetrating insight into the 'three jewels': i.e, impermanence, emptiness/interdependence, and dukkha. That 'platform' then ties in with/ leads on to, the Buddhists preferred method of practice for deepening insight: the meditative absorptions (jhanas) of which commonly there are eight. Four form based and a [corresponding] further four formless meditative absorptions, each pertaining to increasingly subtle and profound states. They tend to talk about jhanas in terms of 'sphere's' [of being] within which one enters and dwells, and accordingly apprehends penetrating insight. To give some further context, I'll just mention that the eighth jhana is characterised as " The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception". Btw I should declare I'm no expert on the jhanas, although it's high on my list as something I'd like to explore more fully, hopefully in there near future when I have a bit more time. Nirodha samapatti is sometimes referred to as the ninth jhana, " The cessation of perception & feeling". I've seen it portrayed as being about as close to paranibbana as can be, albeit whilst still being a temporary state. Although personally I'm not sure about the validity of that, (bearing in mind what we've been saying in regard to the 'deepest vs highest' aspect of this subject). So anyway, there's some context, and if you bear with me, I'll put up some of the notes I've collected which hopefully may better relate and characterise the Buddhist version of NS ...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 13, 2020 16:04:41 GMT -5
Yes, many Buddhist masters, especially in the Zen tradition, consider NS essential, but from my meetings with people who have found "the solid ground of being," and from reading dozens (if not hundreds) of biographies of sages, that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for awakening. I know one teacher who emphasizes the fact that his monkey mind never slowed down, and he never entered deep states of meditative absorption, but he nevertheless found what he was looking for. I also know other ND teachers who had significant realizations and saw through the concensus paradigm illusion without entering NS, so apparently NS is only a trigger-type event for particular people. In the Zen tradition many meditators experience kensho following NS, so deep meditative absorption obviously is a significant factor on some peoples' paths. Out of curiosity, how do people define or describe nirodha-samapatti? I wonder if that's synonymous with Waite's sthiti samadhi and Ramana's sahaja samadhi? Firstly a quick correction: In my previous post I referred to nirodha samapatti as being the highest state of samadhi. I should've said the deepest, in keeping with a quote you supplied a few weeks back where someone, (possibly niz) was talking in terms of SS being the highest and NS being the deepest state of samadhi. A point I concurred with at the time. (Incidentally, I'm not sure if there is an equivalent to SS in Buddhism, but it always seems quite akin to nibbana to me). Going on to address your query, I didn't mean to convey that NS would be essential for clear seeing per se. In the Buddhist hierarchy it appears to be almost 'beyond' vipassana. To give a bit of context, as I mentioned, the eighth step in the eightfold path pertains to samadhi in relation to vipassana meditation. However, I think (certainly initially) this is more about cultivating an auspicious state to glean penetrating insight into the 'three jewels': i.e, impermanence, emptiness/interdependence, and dukkha. That 'platform' then ties in with/ leads on to, the Buddhists preferred method of practice for deepening insight: the meditative absorptions (jhanas) of which commonly there are eight. Four form based and a [corresponding] further four formless meditative absorptions, each pertaining to increasingly subtle and profound states. They tend to talk about jhanas in terms of 'sphere's' [of being] within which one enters and dwells, and accordingly apprehends penetrating insight. To give some further context, I'll just mention that the eighth jhana is characterised as " The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception". Btw I should declare I'm no expert on the jhanas, although it's high on my list as something I'd like to explore more fully, hopefully in there near future when I have a bit more time. Nirodha samapatti is sometimes referred to as the ninth jhana, " The cessation of perception & feeling". I've seen it portrayed as being about as close to paranibbana as can be, albeit whilst still being a temporary state. Although personally I'm not sure about the validity of that, (bearing in mind what we've been saying in regard to the 'deepest vs highest' aspect of this subject). So anyway, there's some context, and if you bear with me, I'll put up some of the notes I've collected which hopefully may better relate and characterise the Buddhist version of NS ... That's interesting, and it certainly sounds like nirodha samapatti is the same state as NS because in NS there is a cessation of everything--time, space, thoughts, feeling, hearing, vision, etc. It was Ramana who claimed that NS is the deepest and SS is the highest. I assume that he considered it that way because NS is transient and usually attained via sitting meditation and SS is permanent and continues during everyday life. I never understood how vipassana tied into Buddhism, but I never had enough curiosity to investigate the matter. I lost interest in vipassana because I was told that the primary practice was being aware of both the "inside world" of thoughts, and the "outside world" of what we call "physical reality," and I had no interest in watching thoughts. I was interested in leaving thoughts behind because it seemed obvious that thoughts all deal with imaginary distinctions and are primarily language based. I was interested in learning how to see and interact with the world free of thoughts because I was convinced that the sense of selfhood existed as a consequence of internalized distinctions of separateness. At a certain point I became intuitively certain that if attention stayed focused on what is actual rather than what is imaginary, sooner or later the mind would shift in some way. I didn't know anything about brain plasticity at that time, but later it seemed as if my speculation about this was correct because after several years of shifting attention away from thoughts, the sense of separateness suddenly collapsed and totally vanished one day. Only after that happened did it become obvious that who I had thought I was had never existed, and that THIS had been the real seeker seeking to understand the context of human existence.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 13, 2020 16:12:23 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, how do people define or describe nirodha-samapatti? I wonder if that's synonymous with Waite's sthiti samadhi and Ramana's sahaja samadhi? Okay, so I'll just post in quote form various snippets I've collected on the subject , and leave you to pick the bones out of it;
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 13, 2020 16:30:23 GMT -5
I honestly can't imagine discovering the existential truth without the temporary interruption of monkey mind. But - and while this is funny, I also mean it sincerely - anything is possible! That said, I'd also opine that if someone like that wanted to open up, in self-honesty, they might discover something very significant, in that cessation. Well, it's hard to know exactly what some people have seen, and how deeply they've seen into the nature of THIS, but from what I can discern various people have discovered the truth in spite of a talkative mind and without ever entering states like NS. I think deep sustained silence is highly correlated with seeing through the consensus paradigm, but it doesn't seem to be absolutely necessary. As one example, just think about Paul Morgan-Somers, who, without any meditation or self-enquiry suddenly fell into the ocean of THIS. Or Ramana, for that matter. It may be that deep sustained silence is far more necessary for people who are already strongly attached to a particular conception of reality, but even here there are unique instances that don't fit the usual pattern. I'll post some writings when I get a chance that illustrate this. Laughter: One of the guys I was referring to is Art Ticknor, a teacher in the TAT organization. He often tells people that his thoughts have never slowed down, and I can't remember his ever talking about experiencing meditative states of mind like NS. His main teaching is about persistence because he searched for a long time (more than 30 years) before he finally had a breakthrough. He went to see various teachers, such as Douglas Harding, and he went on dozens of solo retreats. His main teacher was Richard Rose. I haven't read his book, "The Solid Ground of Being," but here's an excerpt from his book, "Beyond Relativity:" pp. 298-299: I came back to the cabin around 8:30 and found myself looking spontaneously back into what I look out from, as had happened several times earlier in the day. It occurred again as I finished a cup of tea and moved from the kitchen table to a chair in the living room. (ZD: he was on a solo retreat) I didn't lose body consciousness, but I sat in that chair without moving--in retrospect, I think someone coming into the cabin would have seen a comatose body--for maybe an hour, during which time I lost the final conviction of individuality and simultaneously became consciously what I am, have always been and will always be. I also witnessed the mind, as the open channel from its source "downloaded" way more information than it could consciously absorb. At 10:12 I made the following journal entry: The creature moves from the chair to the kitchen table, to record what has occurred over the past hour. His hand writes, not knowing how it knows. His memory is somewhat sketchy, so he will see how much of what occurred comes back. I say "he," but he is really Me. Well, as real as a shadow gets. I have created this one--a tableau of events, a story--and projected it so that he thinks he's alive, experiencing events over time; experiencing his "inner" and "outer" changes as well as changes in his "environment." One of the first occurrences in the tableau of tonight's realization was the realization that I, his newly found I, created him ("this creature sitting in the chair") and projected him. Then he thought of the nice old nun, Sister Phyllis, who's in charge of hospitality here--and realized that he/I had created her to think she was alive. And then he/I felt the love I have for My creations--and he/I felt the poignancy of that creature's belief that she is a separate being who was born alone and is going to die alone. And he wept for her. And then he/I realized that he (this creature) had really FELT for the first time..... This will give a flavor of what Art realized at that time.....
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 13, 2020 16:48:13 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, how do people define or describe nirodha-samapatti? I wonder if that's synonymous with Waite's sthiti samadhi and Ramana's sahaja samadhi? Okay, so I'll just post in quote form various snippets I've collected on the subject , and leave you to pick the bones out of it; That's interesting. I had never heard of any state that could be considered total oblivion/cessation, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to attain such a state. NS is blissful, and if there is total cessation, I assume that there is no felt sense of anything. In any event it's apparently temporary, and what everyone is searching for is not temporary. The same is true for NS; it's temporary. It's fascinating that anyone would claim that the state of cessation might last for 7 days. As I've noted before, NS can last for one or two days at most, but even that long a period of time is pretty unusual. It's true that breathing slows down a great deal in NS because that effect can be felt prior to passing the "event horizon" where everything disappears. It almost feels like the body stops breathing prior to the disappearance of everything. I don't know about heart rate, but probably scientists have tested Zen Masters who go into NS, and I would not be surprised to learn that the heart rate drops precipitously.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 13, 2020 16:53:13 GMT -5
Firstly a quick correction: In my previous post I referred to nirodha samapatti as being the highest state of samadhi. I should've said the deepest, in keeping with a quote you supplied a few weeks back where someone, (possibly niz) was talking in terms of SS being the highest and NS being the deepest state of samadhi. A point I concurred with at the time. (Incidentally, I'm not sure if there is an equivalent to SS in Buddhism, but it always seems quite akin to nibbana to me). Going on to address your query, I didn't mean to convey that NS would be essential for clear seeing per se. In the Buddhist hierarchy it appears to be almost 'beyond' vipassana. To give a bit of context, as I mentioned, the eighth step in the eightfold path pertains to samadhi in relation to vipassana meditation. However, I think (certainly initially) this is more about cultivating an auspicious state to glean penetrating insight into the 'three jewels': i.e, impermanence, emptiness/interdependence, and dukkha. That 'platform' then ties in with/ leads on to, the Buddhists preferred method of practice for deepening insight: the meditative absorptions (jhanas) of which commonly there are eight. Four form based and a [corresponding] further four formless meditative absorptions, each pertaining to increasingly subtle and profound states. They tend to talk about jhanas in terms of 'sphere's' [of being] within which one enters and dwells, and accordingly apprehends penetrating insight. To give some further context, I'll just mention that the eighth jhana is characterised as " The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception". Btw I should declare I'm no expert on the jhanas, although it's high on my list as something I'd like to explore more fully, hopefully in there near future when I have a bit more time. Nirodha samapatti is sometimes referred to as the ninth jhana, " The cessation of perception & feeling". I've seen it portrayed as being about as close to paranibbana as can be, albeit whilst still being a temporary state. Although personally I'm not sure about the validity of that, (bearing in mind what we've been saying in regard to the 'deepest vs highest' aspect of this subject). So anyway, there's some context, and if you bear with me, I'll put up some of the notes I've collected which hopefully may better relate and characterise the Buddhist version of NS ... That's interesting, and it certainly sounds like nirodha samapatti is the same state as NS because in NS there is a cessation of everything--time, space, thoughts, feeling, hearing, vision, etc. It was Ramana who claimed that NS is the deepest and SS is the highest. I assume that he considered it that way because NS is transient and usually attained via sitting meditation and SS is permanent and continues during everyday life. I never understood how vipassana tied into Buddhism, but I never had enough curiosity to investigate the matter. I lost interest in vipassana because I was told that the primary practice was being aware of both the "inside world" of thoughts, and the "outside world" of what we call "physical reality," and I had no interest in watching thoughts. I was interested in leaving thoughts behind because it seemed obvious that thoughts all deal with imaginary distinctions and are primarily language based. I was interested in learning how to see and interact with the world free of thoughts because I was convinced that the sense of selfhood existed as a consequence of internalized distinctions of separateness. At a certain point I became intuitively certain that if attention stayed focused on what is actual rather than what is imaginary, sooner or later the mind would shift in some way. I didn't know anything about brain plasticity at that time, but later it seemed as if my speculation about this was correct because after several years of shifting attention away from thoughts, the sense of separateness suddenly collapsed and totally vanished one day. Only after that happened did it become obvious that who I had thought I was had never existed, and that THIS had been the real seeker seeking to understand the context of human existence. I've seen you write this dozens of times, and even the first time I considered it incorrect. So, today, I googled vipassana meditation. I've read SN Goenka, going back years, on vipassana, from whom the link is derived. I felt the wish to respond, and since you said you've never been interested in investigating, further, vipassana, thought it a good point to express what exactly vipassana is, in brief. No where in the short article is observing thoughts specifically mentioned. Observing sensations is said to be what vipassana is about. This is precisely your ATA-T (sensations can also be sensations within the body). The key point in my response is "I was told". Whoever told you this was incorrect. That's not your fault, but it is your fault that you repeat it continually, in error, having not had the interest to verify what someone told you. Now, further, you have also stated you can stop your thoughts. I commend you for insisting upon verifying from your own experience. Others have already 'invented the wheel'. And I know during your search years there was no internet and books were rare and had to be ordered, if one found out what to order. I have no problem with your then. But I offer this now, so as further error perpetuated might not dissuade others from what might be a fruitful path, for them. A little persistent vipassana will show that it too will cease thoughts. And it is for this reason that actually observing one's thoughts is virtually impossible. Now, what I have read, elsewhere concerning vipassana, is that when thoughts come, and they will, maybe for a long time, what one does is just note the thought, but then go back to observing sensations. www.dhamma.org/en/about/vipassanaI could also recommend reading a version of the Buddha's treatise on Fourfold Mindfulness. A most excellent version is by Thich Nhat Hanh, Transformation and Healing: Sutra on the Four Establishments of Mindfulness.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 13, 2020 16:56:57 GMT -5
Firstly a quick correction: In my previous post I referred to nirodha samapatti as being the highest state of samadhi. I should've said the deepest, in keeping with a quote you supplied a few weeks back where someone, (possibly niz) was talking in terms of SS being the highest and NS being the deepest state of samadhi. A point I concurred with at the time. (Incidentally, I'm not sure if there is an equivalent to SS in Buddhism, but it always seems quite akin to nibbana to me). Going on to address your query, I didn't mean to convey that NS would be essential for clear seeing per se. In the Buddhist hierarchy it appears to be almost 'beyond' vipassana. To give a bit of context, as I mentioned, the eighth step in the eightfold path pertains to samadhi in relation to vipassana meditation. However, I think (certainly initially) this is more about cultivating an auspicious state to glean penetrating insight into the 'three jewels': i.e, impermanence, emptiness/interdependence, and dukkha. That 'platform' then ties in with/ leads on to, the Buddhists preferred method of practice for deepening insight: the meditative absorptions (jhanas) of which commonly there are eight. Four form based and a [corresponding] further four formless meditative absorptions, each pertaining to increasingly subtle and profound states. They tend to talk about jhanas in terms of 'sphere's' [of being] within which one enters and dwells, and accordingly apprehends penetrating insight. To give some further context, I'll just mention that the eighth jhana is characterised as " The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception". Btw I should declare I'm no expert on the jhanas, although it's high on my list as something I'd like to explore more fully, hopefully in there near future when I have a bit more time. Nirodha samapatti is sometimes referred to as the ninth jhana, " The cessation of perception & feeling". I've seen it portrayed as being about as close to paranibbana as can be, albeit whilst still being a temporary state. Although personally I'm not sure about the validity of that, (bearing in mind what we've been saying in regard to the 'deepest vs highest' aspect of this subject). So anyway, there's some context, and if you bear with me, I'll put up some of the notes I've collected which hopefully may better relate and characterise the Buddhist version of NS ... That's interesting, and it certainly sounds like nirodha samapatti is the same state as NS because in NS there is a cessation of everything--time, space, thoughts, feeling, hearing, vision, etc. Yes, I think that’s in keeping with my 'snippet' which begins "….. According to Theravada belief", and details the passing through jhanas 5-8, prior to NS. Yes, Ramana, it came to me afterward. I agree with your interpretation, makes sense. I can understand your lack of interest, but would make the point that the Dhamma is intended as a comprehensive formula covering all stages on the pathless path. That means it's designed to allow for any level of seeker, and I'm guessing the aspect of vipassana you mention, (with regard to watching thoughts etc), would primarily be about cultivating mindfulness toward 'becoming/being conscious'. I'd contend you were already further along the path at that stage, moreover that 'being conscious' has likely been second nature for you for most of your lifetime. It's just to say that's not the reality for the majority.
|
|