|
Post by laughter on Jun 27, 2020 1:13:51 GMT -5
Thing is, you wrote about your apperception quite well, and I don't want to borrow or stand on that. I had a sudden experience years ago where I was walking/talking around and acting in the absence of any "I-sense". This went on for months to one degree or another, and sometimes, it wasn't a matter of degree. The existential illusion collapsed completely as a result. The way I prefer to describe the nature of this illusion is in terms of identity, perception, and felt sense of reality. There are involved back and forward stories relative to that experience, but the bottom line is a few years later I became conscious that all existential questioning had ended. We'll have to agree to differ on that point. If you're interested, I could describe my past experiences and realizations on the nature of thingness, and separation, and directly relate that to what you've written about apperception in your last two replies. You don’t have to borrow my phrase but I’m intrigued (especially in the light of your reply here) to know how you would describe your ongoing lived experience of not-two (assume that most of the preceding words came with inverted commas.) I’m particularly interested in how descriptions of realisation and collapsing illusions are related without having to concede that these too are positioned within the manifestation. Oh, but in writing that description, I do concede that. I'd rather not infer why you'd expect that I wouldn't have to concede it, so I won't address the expectation beyond that, but if you want to explain, I'm interested. Experience after the collapse of the illusion differs in many ways. Some of it is clearly due to that collapse, and is best expressed in terms of absence. There's the absence of any trace of existential dread or the curiosity about or fear of death. There's also a completely different quality to my curiosity about the natural world. I've always been intensely fascinated by science and history, but I no longer expect any answers to the big questions from these topics. There were even a few years when I lost interest in them altogether. Interest in the topic of nonduality, in the cultures surrounding it, and an impetus to find others to correspond with about it, and an impetus to get poetic about were all completely unexpected, and I would never have predicted any of that prior to the collapse. Beyond that, is, of course, the ongoing felt sense of perception. Here though, it becomes less clear what's due directly to the collapse of the illusion, and what's been due to the changes in conditioning that led up to the event, and the informing of mind that happened afterward. There is, what I'd describe, as an underlying lightness to all of perception and experience. A sort of mirth, coupled with a deep sense of poignancy as to the ephemeral beauty of it all. There's always a sense of an underlying gentle presence - even when there's pain and stress. The change in my state saved my marriage, as much of the unconscious falsity that drove the conflict just faded away - first, with a sudden jolt, and then sustained, and gradual over time. There was an intense bliss associated with that time with no "I" .. and that's never gone away, not completely. It's always there, underneath the surface, never not just one good deep breath away. Boredom, is impossible now, as is, despair. The notion of "oneness" wasn't much of a shock to me .. and that's one of those back stories .. but there is a radical and ineffable divide between the material shadows of that notion that I understood, before the collapse, and then, after.
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 27, 2020 8:20:28 GMT -5
You don’t have to borrow my phrase but I’m intrigued (especially in the light of your reply here) to know how you would describe your ongoing lived experience of not-two (assume that most of the preceding words came with inverted commas.) I’m particularly interested in how descriptions of realisation and collapsing illusions are related without having to concede that these too are positioned within the manifestation. Oh, but in writing that description, I do concede that. I'd rather not infer why you'd expect that I wouldn't have to concede it, so I won't address the expectation beyond that, but if you want to explain, I'm interested. Experience after the collapse of the illusion differs in many ways. Some of it is clearly due to that collapse, and is best expressed in terms of absence. There's the absence of any trace of existential dread or the curiosity about or fear of death. There's also a completely different quality to my curiosity about the natural world. I've always been intensely fascinated by science and history, but I no longer expect any answers to the big questions from these topics. There were even a few years when I lost interest in them altogether. Interest in the topic of nonduality, in the cultures surrounding it, and an impetus to find others to correspond with about it, and an impetus to get poetic about were all completely unexpected, and I would never have predicted any of that prior to the collapse. Beyond that, is, of course, the ongoing felt sense of perception. Here though, it becomes less clear what's due directly to the collapse of the illusion, and what's been due to the changes in conditioning that led up to the event, and the informing of mind that happened afterward. There is, what I'd describe, as an underlying lightness to all of perception and experience. A sort of mirth, coupled with a deep sense of poignancy as to the ephemeral beauty of it all. There's always a sense of an underlying gentle presence - even when there's pain and stress. The change in my state saved my marriage, as much of the unconscious falsity that drove the conflict just faded away - first, with a sudden jolt, and then sustained, and gradual over time. There was an intense bliss associated with that time with no "I" .. and that's never gone away, not completely. It's always there, underneath the surface, never not just one good deep breath away. Boredom, is impossible now, as is, despair. The notion of "oneness" wasn't much of a shock to me .. and that's one of those back stories .. but there is a radical and ineffable divide between the material shadows of that notion that I understood, before the collapse, and then, after. When I recently commented about a felt-sense apperception. You rejoined with a comment about anything that a mind can do or perceive had nothing to do with the existential truth. Of course I’d not been talking about individual minds or ordinary perception but nonetheless this seemed squarely aimed at my felt-sense apperception comment. In the past I’ve noticed a line of thinking around these parts which says something to the effect that ‘anything that can be perceived must be empty of truth’ or ‘the entirety of mind is dream stuff and therefore cannot be relied upon’. Since this involves the entire manifestation - including how collapsing illusions and realisations are consolidated - it obviously becomes something of a self-defeating hypothesis. I wondered where you were on this. Thanks for the clarification - and for your descriptions.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 27, 2020 16:04:41 GMT -5
Oh, but in writing that description, I do concede that. I'd rather not infer why you'd expect that I wouldn't have to concede it, so I won't address the expectation beyond that, but if you want to explain, I'm interested. Experience after the collapse of the illusion differs in many ways. Some of it is clearly due to that collapse, and is best expressed in terms of absence. There's the absence of any trace of existential dread or the curiosity about or fear of death. There's also a completely different quality to my curiosity about the natural world. I've always been intensely fascinated by science and history, but I no longer expect any answers to the big questions from these topics. There were even a few years when I lost interest in them altogether. Interest in the topic of nonduality, in the cultures surrounding it, and an impetus to find others to correspond with about it, and an impetus to get poetic about were all completely unexpected, and I would never have predicted any of that prior to the collapse. Beyond that, is, of course, the ongoing felt sense of perception. Here though, it becomes less clear what's due directly to the collapse of the illusion, and what's been due to the changes in conditioning that led up to the event, and the informing of mind that happened afterward. There is, what I'd describe, as an underlying lightness to all of perception and experience. A sort of mirth, coupled with a deep sense of poignancy as to the ephemeral beauty of it all. There's always a sense of an underlying gentle presence - even when there's pain and stress. The change in my state saved my marriage, as much of the unconscious falsity that drove the conflict just faded away - first, with a sudden jolt, and then sustained, and gradual over time. There was an intense bliss associated with that time with no "I" .. and that's never gone away, not completely. It's always there, underneath the surface, never not just one good deep breath away. Boredom, is impossible now, as is, despair. The notion of "oneness" wasn't much of a shock to me .. and that's one of those back stories .. but there is a radical and ineffable divide between the material shadows of that notion that I understood, before the collapse, and then, after. When I recently commented about a felt-sense apperception. You rejoined with a comment about anything that a mind can do or perceive had nothing to do with the existential truth. Of course I’d not been talking about individual minds or ordinary perception but nonetheless this seemed squarely aimed at my felt-sense apperception comment. In the past I’ve noticed a line of thinking around these parts which says something to the effect that ‘anything that can be perceived must be empty of truth’ or ‘the entirety of mind is dream stuff and therefore cannot be relied upon’. Since this involves the entire manifestation - including how collapsing illusions and realisations are consolidated - it obviously becomes something of a self-defeating hypothesis. I wondered where you were on this. Thanks for the clarification - and for your descriptions. Because we're comparing notes, I'll add some feedback on this subject from this character's POV. In 1999 when the illusion of selfhood collapsed, and the mind finally understood (became informed about) what was going on, many past patterns of self-referential thought simply disappeared. The character was finally able to relax and live an ordinary life without having to seek anything. It then felt as if life was a kind of effortless unfolding or flow. In general, the mind was far more silent than in the past, but when thinking occurred, there was very little reflectiveness about whatever thoughts arose. t wasn't so much that the character then had a felt sense of oneness as much as there was no longer any sense of psychological separation from reality. IOW, it no longer felt as if reality was being observed by an observer; there was simply an understanding that what we are IS reality. The character had a kind of financial enlightenment insight in 2000, and the next 9 years were spent paying off debts and becoming financially free. My wife and I attended a few non-duality retreats along the way because it was (and still is) great fun to hear the truth filtered through other sages and pointed to in uniquely-different ways. Additional small insights occurred along the way, but they were never associated with any questioning. Occasionally the answers to various koans that I had heard about in the past would become obvious in an "out of the blue" sort of way. The "little guy in the head" who disappeared in 1999 never came back, and today life still feels like it flows along like a river. I still have many interests, and I enjoy pretty much everything I do even when I'm physically working hard. One of my greatest pleasures is talking to people about non-duality and giving whatever pointers I can to help others find "the solid ground of being." This character always seems to know what to do, and whatever attracts its interest seems totally fascinating. Life is accepted however it unfolds, and there are no strong attachments to any ideas. The world seems quite real, and is related to as if it were as real as a rock, but the philosophical idea of real or unreal doesn't arise. Life may be nothing more than a play of consciousness, but it doesn't seem to matter one way or the other. After seeing the Big Picture, so to speak, the character didn't change outwardly very much. The same personality persisted with the same characteristics. I was a happy camper 90% of the time before the illusion of selfhood collapsed, and afterwards I was a happy camper 100% of the time. There's no sense of this character being special in any way as a result of having had various existential realizations, and it seems obvious that everyone else is perfectly acting in the same way in accordance with whatever has happened in their lives and in accordance with whatever their interests are. It seems to me that the only reason most adults remain unrealized is that they believe the various ideas they've been culturally conditioned to believe and because they spend most of their time thinking rather than looking at the world in silence. I always feel grateful for what's been seen and realized, and I feel enormous reverence and awe for the unimaginable Intelligence in which we live and breathe and have our being.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 27, 2020 22:58:18 GMT -5
Oh, but in writing that description, I do concede that. I'd rather not infer why you'd expect that I wouldn't have to concede it, so I won't address the expectation beyond that, but if you want to explain, I'm interested. Experience after the collapse of the illusion differs in many ways. Some of it is clearly due to that collapse, and is best expressed in terms of absence. There's the absence of any trace of existential dread or the curiosity about or fear of death. There's also a completely different quality to my curiosity about the natural world. I've always been intensely fascinated by science and history, but I no longer expect any answers to the big questions from these topics. There were even a few years when I lost interest in them altogether. Interest in the topic of nonduality, in the cultures surrounding it, and an impetus to find others to correspond with about it, and an impetus to get poetic about were all completely unexpected, and I would never have predicted any of that prior to the collapse. Beyond that, is, of course, the ongoing felt sense of perception. Here though, it becomes less clear what's due directly to the collapse of the illusion, and what's been due to the changes in conditioning that led up to the event, and the informing of mind that happened afterward. There is, what I'd describe, as an underlying lightness to all of perception and experience. A sort of mirth, coupled with a deep sense of poignancy as to the ephemeral beauty of it all. There's always a sense of an underlying gentle presence - even when there's pain and stress. The change in my state saved my marriage, as much of the unconscious falsity that drove the conflict just faded away - first, with a sudden jolt, and then sustained, and gradual over time. There was an intense bliss associated with that time with no "I" .. and that's never gone away, not completely. It's always there, underneath the surface, never not just one good deep breath away. Boredom, is impossible now, as is, despair. The notion of "oneness" wasn't much of a shock to me .. and that's one of those back stories .. but there is a radical and ineffable divide between the material shadows of that notion that I understood, before the collapse, and then, after. When I recently commented about a felt-sense apperception. You rejoined with a comment about anything that a mind can do or perceive had nothing to do with the existential truth. Of course I’d not been talking about individual minds or ordinary perception but nonetheless this seemed squarely aimed at my felt-sense apperception comment. In the past I’ve noticed a line of thinking around these parts which says something to the effect that ‘anything that can be perceived must be empty of truth’ or ‘the entirety of mind is dream stuff and therefore cannot be relied upon’. Since this involves the entire manifestation - including how collapsing illusions and realisations are consolidated - it obviously becomes something of a self-defeating hypothesis. I wondered where you were on this. Thanks for the clarification - and for your descriptions. Sure yeah .. well I do rezz with the "all appearances are empty of Truth" idea. I'm sort of omnivorous when it comes to pointing, that way. If I were to describe the result of following the prescription to "Attend the Actual", or another similar intent, it will read in terms of direct, sensory perception. What would be absent from the description would be any secondary interpretation of those perceptions. I might say "there were birds singing as a light rain fell from the warm, sunset sky". So there are relative interpretations of what was seen and heard and felt, but no abstraction on top of that. Well .. maybe, "singing". This is where "appearances empty of Truth" and direct sensory perception begin (but only, begin) to meet: in the absence of mind-made meaning. Contrasting an ongoing life experience before and after the sort of aperception you described will always necessarily involve some secondary interpretation. And this is why I understand when some people writing about this stuff will say something to the effect of "there is no person who gets enlightened". I can understand the apparent contradiction between describing experience after realization and pointing to emptiness, which is why I've peppered these descriptions of mine with various disclaimers. fwiw, that was in reply to your post describing the aperception, but it wasn't about or directed to that description. It was about and directed to whether or not declaring the existential falsity of objective, material reality is a philosophical statement, as it related to the discussion on the topics of Segal's claim about deep sleep, individuated minds, and not-two.
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 28, 2020 4:37:58 GMT -5
When I recently commented about a felt-sense apperception. You rejoined with a comment about anything that a mind can do or perceive had nothing to do with the existential truth. Of course I’d not been talking about individual minds or ordinary perception but nonetheless this seemed squarely aimed at my felt-sense apperception comment. In the past I’ve noticed a line of thinking around these parts which says something to the effect that ‘anything that can be perceived must be empty of truth’ or ‘the entirety of mind is dream stuff and therefore cannot be relied upon’. Since this involves the entire manifestation - including how collapsing illusions and realisations are consolidated - it obviously becomes something of a self-defeating hypothesis. I wondered where you were on this. Thanks for the clarification - and for your descriptions. Sure yeah .. well I do rezz with the "all appearances are empty of Truth" idea. I'm sort of omnivorous when it comes to pointing, that way. If I were to describe the result of following the prescription to "Attend the Actual", or another similar intent, it will read in terms of direct, sensory perception. What would be absent from the description would be any secondary interpretation of those perceptions. I might say "there were birds singing as a light rain fell from the warm, sunset sky". So there are relative interpretations of what was seen and heard and felt, but no abstraction on top of that. Well .. maybe, "singing". This is where "appearances empty of Truth" and direct sensory perception begin (but only, begin) to meet: in the absence of mind-made meaning. Contrasting an ongoing life experience before and after the sort of aperception you described will always necessarily involve some secondary interpretation. And this is why I understand when some people writing about this stuff will say something to the effect of "there is no person who gets enlightened". I can understand the apparent contradiction between describing experience after realization and pointing to emptiness, which is why I've peppered these descriptions of mine with various disclaimers. fwiw, that was in reply to your post describing the aperception, but it wasn't about or directed to that description. It was about and directed to whether or not declaring the existential falsity of objective, material reality is a philosophical statement, as it related to the discussion on the topics of Segal's claim about deep sleep, individuated minds, and not-two. Okay, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 28, 2020 4:44:11 GMT -5
When I recently commented about a felt-sense apperception. You rejoined with a comment about anything that a mind can do or perceive had nothing to do with the existential truth. Of course I’d not been talking about individual minds or ordinary perception but nonetheless this seemed squarely aimed at my felt-sense apperception comment. In the past I’ve noticed a line of thinking around these parts which says something to the effect that ‘anything that can be perceived must be empty of truth’ or ‘the entirety of mind is dream stuff and therefore cannot be relied upon’. Since this involves the entire manifestation - including how collapsing illusions and realisations are consolidated - it obviously becomes something of a self-defeating hypothesis. I wondered where you were on this. Thanks for the clarification - and for your descriptions. Because we're comparing notes, I'll add some feedback on this subject from this character's POV. In 1999 when the illusion of selfhood collapsed, and the mind finally understood (became informed about) what was going on, many past patterns of self-referential thought simply disappeared. The character was finally able to relax and live an ordinary life without having to seek anything. It then felt as if life was a kind of effortless unfolding or flow. In general, the mind was far more silent than in the past, but when thinking occurred, there was very little reflectiveness about whatever thoughts arose. t wasn't so much that the character then had a felt sense of oneness as much as there was no longer any sense of psychological separation from reality. IOW, it no longer felt as if reality was being observed by an observer; there was simply an understanding that what we are IS reality. The character had a kind of financial enlightenment insight in 2000, and the next 9 years were spent paying off debts and becoming financially free. My wife and I attended a few non-duality retreats along the way because it was (and still is) great fun to hear the truth filtered through other sages and pointed to in uniquely-different ways. Additional small insights occurred along the way, but they were never associated with any questioning. Occasionally the answers to various koans that I had heard about in the past would become obvious in an "out of the blue" sort of way. The "little guy in the head" who disappeared in 1999 never came back, and today life still feels like it flows along like a river. I still have many interests, and I enjoy pretty much everything I do even when I'm physically working hard. One of my greatest pleasures is talking to people about non-duality and giving whatever pointers I can to help others find "the solid ground of being." This character always seems to know what to do, and whatever attracts its interest seems totally fascinating. Life is accepted however it unfolds, and there are no strong attachments to any ideas. The world seems quite real, and is related to as if it were as real as a rock, but the philosophical idea of real or unreal doesn't arise. Life may be nothing more than a play of consciousness, but it doesn't seem to matter one way or the other. After seeing the Big Picture, so to speak, the character didn't change outwardly very much. The same personality persisted with the same characteristics. I was a happy camper 90% of the time before the illusion of selfhood collapsed, and afterwards I was a happy camper 100% of the time. There's no sense of this character being special in any way as a result of having had various existential realizations, and it seems obvious that everyone else is perfectly acting in the same way in accordance with whatever has happened in their lives and in accordance with whatever their interests are. It seems to me that the only reason most adults remain unrealized is that they believe the various ideas they've been culturally conditioned to believe and because they spend most of their time thinking rather than looking at the world in silence. I always feel grateful for what's been seen and realized, and I feel enormous reverence and awe for the unimaginable Intelligence in which we live and breathe and have our being.
Thanks for sharing ZD. I can relate to much of this in varying degrees. In relation to the current conversation, this particularly stands out:
"Life is accepted however it unfolds, and there are no strong attachments to any ideas. The world seems quite real, and is related to as if it were as real as a rock, but the philosophical idea of real or unreal doesn't arise. Life may be nothing more than a play of consciousness, but it doesn't seem to matter one way or the other."
Yes. These philosophical ideas just simply don’t apply. I don’t know - I don’t need to know. Realisation is not a dry calculation or one-shot conclusion - it’s an ever-fresh apperception.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2020 10:17:03 GMT -5
Can you clarify, are you saying you figure Niz puts it around 2) in the four part model you talked about previously? … Correct.
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Jun 30, 2020 6:02:34 GMT -5
That would be my guess. Another way of saying it would be "awareness without the distinction of any objects" or "awareness of the field of reality without distinction," which would also mean "seeing 'what is.'" I read Pathways Through To Space and then The Philosophy of Consciousness Without An Object over 40 years ago. By Consciousness without an object I think Merrell-Wolff means exactly nirvikalpa samadhi. Different people use the words awareness and consciousness differently. "Aphorisms on Consciousness Without an Object 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. 3. Though objects seems to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, Consciousness-without-an-object is. ... " "The aspirant to Yoga starts with consciousness operating in the universe of experience and thought, and in a state of a self entangled with objects... The first steps in Yoga technique have the significance of progressive disentanglement of the self and of dehypnotizing the consciousness... At the completion of the first stage, the self stands opposed to and other than the universe of objects... The second stage is ushered in by a radical readjustment in which the self shifts to another plane or base, where relations vanish and the self is realized as identical with content of consciousness... It is as though the "I", which in the original state was like a bare point within the universe and circumscribed by objects, had suddenly transformed itself into a space that comprehended all objects. But there still remains a self that is aware, that maintains its own identity and may be said to have a content that is inverse of experience, for such a self certainly realizes values such as bliss, peace, and freedom. The more familiar name for this state is Nirvana... Now, the final stage of Yoga involves the renunciation of Nirvana, and that means the renunciation of all attractiveness and reward. [This] implies the final annulment of all claims of a self that remains in any sense unique. Both consciousness as object and consciousness as subject are now annulled. There remains simply Consciousness-without-an-object, which, in turn, comprehends both the universe and Nirvana potentialities. This stage is the culmination of Yoga."
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Jun 30, 2020 9:28:09 GMT -5
It also seems like FMW never experienced NS, although he mentions it and a definition is given in the glossary.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 30, 2020 10:25:12 GMT -5
It also seems like FMW never experienced NS, although he mentions it and a definition is given in the glossary. That's what I suspect. He can't be referring to NS because NS is pure awareness without consciousness, so it has nothing to do with consciousness. I assume that consciousness without objects is the same thing as ATA-T; one looks at the world without distinction or commentary. In doing so one sees "what is," or _________________.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 12:17:00 GMT -5
It also seems like FMW never experienced NS, although he mentions it and a definition is given in the glossary. That's what I suspect. He can't be referring to NS because NS is pure awareness without consciousness, so it has nothing to do with consciousness. I assume that consciousness without objects is the same thing as ATA-T; one looks at the world without distinction or commentary. In doing so one sees "what is," or _________________. Did you read some of those "aphorisms" I linked to and still think that? Here they are again: www.merrell-wolff.org/fmw/aphorisms . They sound like he uses "consciousness" for everything and simply doesn't use the word "awareness". ... actually, I take that back... he does use the word "awareness" in there too. The word consciousness to me doesn't suggest any more duality than awareness, though I've learned that they are used that way in non-duality circles these days. Both words can be followed by "of" + an object, yielding similar meaning. Or I can imagine a "pure essence" of consciousness / awareness, somehow extracted from the "things". Well, in my case I "imagine". Maybe if I had some realization I'd change my mind and think the word "awareness" was obviously a better fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 12:22:34 GMT -5
Examples:
38. Out of the Great Void, which is Consciousness-without-an-object, the Universe is creatively projected. 51. Consciousness-without-an-object may be symbolized by a SPACE that is unaffected by the presence or absence of objects ...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 30, 2020 12:56:37 GMT -5
That's what I suspect. He can't be referring to NS because NS is pure awareness without consciousness, so it has nothing to do with consciousness. I assume that consciousness without objects is the same thing as ATA-T; one looks at the world without distinction or commentary. In doing so one sees "what is," or _________________. Did you read some of those "aphorisms" I linked to and still think that? Here they are again: www.merrell-wolff.org/fmw/aphorisms . They sound like he uses "consciousness" for everything and simply doesn't use the word "awareness". ... actually, I take that back... he does use the word "awareness" in there too. The word consciousness to me doesn't suggest any more duality than awareness, though I've learned that they are used that way in non-duality circles these days. Both words can be followed by "of" + an object, yielding similar meaning. Or I can imagine a "pure essence" of consciousness / awareness, somehow extracted from the "things". Well, in my case I "imagine". Maybe if I had some realization I'd change my mind and think the word "awareness" was obviously a better fit. Nisargadatta stated, "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something." In this sense, there's a difference between awareness and consciousness, and I'm making and agreeing with the same distinction as Niz. NS cannot be imagined because there is no content. It's non-dual pure awareness, and in that state there is nothing to be conscious of. Does MW write about having an experience of NS? If so, how does he distinguish between ordinary waking consciousness empty of all thought and NS in which everything (both thought and perception) disappears completely? NS is usually only attained via sitting meditation, and Ramakrishna is the only human I know about (due to a photo posted by Reefs) who apparently could fall into NS while standing up. Ramana and most other sages refer to NS as the deepest state, but it is not considered the highest state because it is transient. When a human is in NS, the body is non-functional.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 14:33:01 GMT -5
Nisargadatta stated, "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something." In this sense, there's a difference between awareness and consciousness, and I'm making and agreeing with the same distinction as Niz. NS cannot be imagined because there is no content. It's non-dual pure awareness, and in that state there is nothing to be conscious of. Does MW write about having an experience of NS? If so, how does he distinguish between ordinary waking consciousness empty of all thought and NS in which everything (both thought and perception) disappears completely? I don't have Merrell-Wolff's book at the moment, and I read it like 15 years ago so I don't remember enough to give a good account. He described a number of experiences. His writing style was a bit odd/ornate, but there was some good content I think. I just found this article, and cut out a few excerpts, which might be describing nirvikalpa samadhi in the last paragraph. He apparently wrote this article because someone objected to his phrase 'High Indifference' which he used to describe one of his experiences. www.merrell-wolff.org/sites/default/files/M186.pdf(The blue highlights are mine.) I'm glad I went to dig that up, because I don't remember him talking about that last part before, saying basically: what I found is not the end. Also of note about words from I Am That... Nisargadatta wasn't speaking English, and Maurice Frydman (the "translator") picked the words. I read that when people asked Nisargadatta about Frydman taking liberties and maybe even making some things up in I Am That, Nisargadatta said something like "He [Frydman] is a gnani, whatever he wrote is right."
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Jun 30, 2020 15:28:03 GMT -5
Did you read some of those "aphorisms" I linked to and still think that? Here they are again: www.merrell-wolff.org/fmw/aphorisms . They sound like he uses "consciousness" for everything and simply doesn't use the word "awareness". ... actually, I take that back... he does use the word "awareness" in there too. The word consciousness to me doesn't suggest any more duality than awareness, though I've learned that they are used that way in non-duality circles these days. Both words can be followed by "of" + an object, yielding similar meaning. Or I can imagine a "pure essence" of consciousness / awareness, somehow extracted from the "things". Well, in my case I "imagine". Maybe if I had some realization I'd change my mind and think the word "awareness" was obviously a better fit. Nisargadatta stated, "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something." In this sense, there's a difference between awareness and consciousness, and I'm making and agreeing with the same distinction as Niz. NS cannot be imagined because there is no content. It's non-dual pure awareness, and in that state there is nothing to be conscious of. Does MW write about having an experience of NS? If so, how does he distinguish between ordinary waking consciousness empty of all thought and NS in which everything (both thought and perception) disappears completely? NS is usually only attained via sitting meditation, and Ramakrishna is the only human I know about (due to a photo posted by Reefs) who apparently could fall into NS while standing up. Ramana and most other sages refer to NS as the deepest state, but it is not considered the highest state because it is transient. When a human is in NS, the body is non-functional. I have FMW's book here: p. 276 "For my own part, never in my life have I lost objective consciousness, save in normal sleep. At the time of my Recognition on August 7, I was at all times aware of my physical environment and could move the body freely at will. Further, I did not attempt to stop the activity of mind, but simply very largely ignored the stream of thought. There was however a "fading down" of the objective consciousness, analogous to that of the dimming of a lamp without complete extinguishment. [...] It is very probable that the concentrated inward state would have been fuller and more acute had the objective stream of consciousness been stopped entirely as in a trance, but with regard to this I cannot speak from personal experience."
|
|