|
Post by zendancer on Jun 30, 2020 16:52:24 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? 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." Yes, that's what I suspected. In NS everything disappears except pure awareness, and it is not a sleep state. That is why Zen people call it "the falling off of body and mind." As one enters that state, there is a felt sense that everything is coalescing prior to the disappearance of everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 19:34:28 GMT -5
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." Hmm. That seems to contradict what he wrote about his further experience that occurred a month later. I quoted more above but the key lines: "I saw with the eye of the mind the disappearance of the object and the subject into the Consciousness itself" ... "descended into darkness, a darkness of non-cognition. How far I descended there was no way to measure. Only there were stages of darkness which became deeper and deeper" ... I thought some of that book was in journal form, so one part might be superseded by the next.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 30, 2020 19:48:29 GMT -5
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." Hmm. That seems to contradict what he wrote about his further experience that occurred a month later. I quoted more above but the key lines: "I saw with the eye of the mind the disappearance of the object and the subject into the Consciousness itself" ... "descended into darkness, a darkness of non-cognition. How far I descended there was no way to measure. Only there were stages of darkness which became deeper and deeper" ... I thought some of that book was in journal form, so one part might be superseded by the next. In this quote he seems to be equating awareness and consciousness, so it may have been NS, but there's no way to know. The word "darkness" doesn't compute, but NS is like sinking or descending into a non-cognitive state, and I can see how someone might use the word "darkness" to refer to that state or process of consciousness dissolution. However, there is a point in the sinking process where the sinking stops and awareness sort of rests in a state of bliss. I've compared it to awareness sinking to the bottom of a deep sea and resting on a seafloor where nothing stirs. That's a crude analogy, but it may be what MW was pointing to. Again, this usually only happens during meditation, and one is non-functional in that state, so that doesn't jive with a few other things that MW wrote about it.
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Jul 1, 2020 0:36:21 GMT -5
Hmm. That seems to contradict what he wrote about his further experience that occurred a month later. I quoted more above but the key lines: "I saw with the eye of the mind the disappearance of the object and the subject into the Consciousness itself" ... "descended into darkness, a darkness of non-cognition. How far I descended there was no way to measure. Only there were stages of darkness which became deeper and deeper" ... I thought some of that book was in journal form, so one part might be superseded by the next. That's a good point. Above quote is from "The philosophy of consciousness without an object" Part I, so it's not from the journal style part ("Pathways through space"). I am unsure when it was written.
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Jul 1, 2020 0:47:28 GMT -5
From the glossary:
"Consciousness: In its most immediate sense the state of "being aware." In the broad, though common, sense consciousness is the state we are in when not in the state of dreamless sleep. [...]"
"Nirvikalpa Samadhi (Sk): The highest form of ecstatic Consciousness possible to man. It may be regarded as a kind of Nirvanic Consciousness, modified by reason of the individual retaining correlation with a physical body. It is a state of Formless Consciousness. It seems to be the rule that this State is only attained in deep trance, but is it possible to attain It without trance, though in this case there is a decided dimming of the outer consciousness. While Buddha did not condemn the trance state, He did not regard it as necessary and advocated Realization without trance."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 1, 2020 7:44:31 GMT -5
From the glossary: "Consciousness: In its most immediate sense the state of "being aware." In the broad, though common, sense consciousness is the state we are in when not in the state of dreamless sleep. [...]" "Nirvikalpa Samadhi (Sk): The highest form of ecstatic Consciousness possible to man. It may be regarded as a kind of Nirvanic Consciousness, modified by reason of the individual retaining correlation with a physical body. It is a state of Formless Consciousness. It seems to be the rule that this State is only attained in deep trance, but is it possible to attain It without trance, though in this case there is a decided dimming of the outer consciousness. While Buddha did not condemn the trance state, He did not regard it as necessary and advocated Realization without trance." Yes, after reading through all of the MW material again, it seems that "consciousness without an object" is what most of us would call "non-cognitive awareness" or "pure awareness." FWIW, I don't consider NS a trance state (although I can see why some people would think of it that way), but the Buddha's point is correct. NS is not necessary for realizations to occur, but NS often precedes experiences wherein the Infinite apprehends Itself directly, and that usually results in several realizations. In fact, this is fairly common in the Zen tradition. I suspect that NS in some way loosens up mental attachments or alters the neural circuitry associated with the default mode neural network responsible for the sense of the SVP.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 1, 2020 8:19:58 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. Recap … Okay thanks for clarifying, that's interesting. I'd been thinking on it before and couldn't decide whether I'd put it and 1, 2, 1&2, or all 4. I wasn't keen on 3/4 due to the whole 'Tolle and Mansion aren't the same', position that I took a while back. Meaning they are qualitative expression. 1 alone never seems quite right, as I tend to reserve that for 'potential'. The neither/nor realm, if that makes any sense. So neither being, nor non-being, for example. Truly ineffable. In fact, although I've come across the phrase, I had to google Godhead, and it says; " God, as we know, refers to the Supreme Being. But Godhead means godhood, divinity, deity, divine nature or essence." Now I understand what you were saying, I too can see the similarity between Niz' and ME's models, and I'm on board with that 'hierarchy'. That's pretty much how it's been sloshing around in the back of my mind, although as I intimated before, no doubt it's pretty enigmatic as a subject.
If I can put it like that, hehe
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 1, 2020 11:15:35 GMT -5
Okay thanks for clarifying, that's interesting. I'd been thinking on it before and couldn't decide whether I'd put it and 1, 2, 1&2, or all 4. I wasn't keen on 3/4 due to the whole 'Tolle and Mansion aren't the same', position that I took a while back. Meaning they are qualitative expression. 1 alone never seems quite right, as I tend to reserve that for 'potential'. The neither/nor realm, if that makes any sense. So neither being, nor non-being, for example. Truly ineffable. In fact, although I've come across the phrase, I had to google Godhead, and it says; " God, as we know, refers to the Supreme Being. But Godhead means godhood, divinity, deity, divine nature or essence." Now I understand what you were saying, I too can see the similarity between Niz' and ME's models, and I'm on board with that 'hierarchy'. That's pretty much how it's been sloshing around in the back of my mind, although as I intimated before, no doubt it's pretty enigmatic as a subject.
If I can put it like that, hehe That google definition doesn't seem to capture it very well. I'd say it would be better to look up ME's own definition of 'Godhead'. Those google entries can be misleading. Keep in mind that Eckhart didn't speak English. We've seen this problem with Niz already. I have to get back to this some time later. I need to check that with ME's works. But before I do that, I'm going to finish Waite's book on Advaita. That will make it a lot easier putting all these different teachings into perspective. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Advaita model, Niz' model and ME's model should turn out to be more or less identical. Anyway, I've found an article on ME in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and their definition of Godhead seems to me a better match: Here's some further reading, D.T. Suzuki on Eckhart and Buddhism: www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mcb/mcb03.htmThe quotes below should sound familiar: “The eye with which I see God is the very eye with which God sees me” - Meister Eckhart “Being is God…God and being are the same – or God has being from another and thus himself is not God…Everything that is has the fact of its being through being and from being. Therefore, if being is something different from God, a thing has its being from something other than God. Besides, there is nothing prior to being because that which confers being creates and is a creator. To create is to give being out of nothing” - Meister Eckhart “God and Godhead are as different as earth is from heaven. Moreover I declare: the outward and the inward man are as different, too, as earth and heaven. God is higher, many thousand miles. Yet God comes and goes." - Meister Eckhart "While I subsisted in the ground, in the bottom, in the river and fount of Godhead, no one asked me where I was going or what I was doing: there was no one to ask me. When I was flowing all creatures spake God. If I am asked, Brother Eckhart, when went ye out of your house? Then I must have been in. Even so do all creatures speak God. And why do they not speak the Godhead? Everything in the Godhead is one, and of that there is nothing to be said. God works, the Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do; in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. On my return to God, where I am formless, my breaking through will be far nobler than my emanation. I alone take all creatures out of their sense into my mind and make them one in me. When I go back into the ground, into the depths, into the well-spring of the Godhead, no one will ask me whence I came or whither I went. No one missed me: God passes away." - Meister Eckhart
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 1, 2020 12:29:13 GMT -5
Okay thanks for clarifying, that's interesting. I'd been thinking on it before and couldn't decide whether I'd put it and 1, 2, 1&2, or all 4. I wasn't keen on 3/4 due to the whole 'Tolle and Mansion aren't the same', position that I took a while back. Meaning they are qualitative expression. 1 alone never seems quite right, as I tend to reserve that for 'potential'. The neither/nor realm, if that makes any sense. So neither being, nor non-being, for example. Truly ineffable. In fact, although I've come across the phrase, I had to google Godhead, and it says; " God, as we know, refers to the Supreme Being. But Godhead means godhood, divinity, deity, divine nature or essence." Now I understand what you were saying, I too can see the similarity between Niz' and ME's models, and I'm on board with that 'hierarchy'. That's pretty much how it's been sloshing around in the back of my mind, although as I intimated before, no doubt it's pretty enigmatic as a subject.
If I can put it like that, hehe That google definition doesn't seem to capture it very well. I'd say it would be better to look up ME's own definition of 'Godhead'. Those google entries can be misleading. Keep in mind that Eckhart didn't speak English. We've seen this problem with Niz already. I have to get back to this some time later. I need to check that with ME's works. But before I do that, I'm going to finish Waite's book on Advaita. That will make it a lot easier putting all these different teachings into perspective. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Advaita model, Niz' model and ME's model should turn out to be more or less identical. Anyway, I've found an article on ME in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and their definition of Godhead seems to me a better match: Here's some further reading, D.T. Suzuki on Eckhart and Buddhism: www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mcb/mcb03.htmThe quotes below should sound familiar: “The eye with which I see God is the very eye with which God sees me” - Meister Eckhart “Being is God…God and being are the same – or God has being from another and thus himself is not God…Everything that is has the fact of its being through being and from being. Therefore, if being is something different from God, a thing has its being from something other than God. Besides, there is nothing prior to being because that which confers being creates and is a creator. To create is to give being out of nothing” - Meister Eckhart “God and Godhead are as different as earth is from heaven. Moreover I declare: the outward and the inward man are as different, too, as earth and heaven. God is higher, many thousand miles. Yet God comes and goes." - Meister Eckhart "While I subsisted in the ground, in the bottom, in the river and fount of Godhead, no one asked me where I was going or what I was doing: there was no one to ask me. When I was flowing all creatures spake God. If I am asked, Brother Eckhart, when went ye out of your house? Then I must have been in. Even so do all creatures speak God. And why do they not speak the Godhead? Everything in the Godhead is one, and of that there is nothing to be said. God works, the Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do; in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. On my return to God, where I am formless, my breaking through will be far nobler than my emanation. I alone take all creatures out of their sense into my mind and make them one in me. When I go back into the ground, into the depths, into the well-spring of the Godhead, no one will ask me whence I came or whither I went. No one missed me: God passes away." - Meister Eckhart I'll need to come back to it later as well, so please by all means take your time, check the works, and finish the book. Just briefly though, Yes, your bolded definition of Godhead is better. It was more the tail end of the google definition I related to, "essence", but in hindsight you're right, the 'prior to' nature of it doesn't come through clearly enough in the google definition. And I want to highlight the following line out of your last ME quote, because it feels very much in keeping with some of the points I began by trying to make in this thread. It ties in quite nicely; " God works, the Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do; in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. " As with Niz … that’s where I'm putting Consciousness. My understanding is the Buddha did as well, albeit the terminology is different.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 2, 2020 11:38:47 GMT -5
That google definition doesn't seem to capture it very well. I'd say it would be better to look up ME's own definition of 'Godhead'. Those google entries can be misleading. Keep in mind that Eckhart didn't speak English. We've seen this problem with Niz already. I have to get back to this some time later. I need to check that with ME's works. But before I do that, I'm going to finish Waite's book on Advaita. That will make it a lot easier putting all these different teachings into perspective. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Advaita model, Niz' model and ME's model should turn out to be more or less identical. Anyway, I've found an article on ME in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and their definition of Godhead seems to me a better match: Here's some further reading, D.T. Suzuki on Eckhart and Buddhism: www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mcb/mcb03.htmThe quotes below should sound familiar: “The eye with which I see God is the very eye with which God sees me” - Meister Eckhart “Being is God…God and being are the same – or God has being from another and thus himself is not God…Everything that is has the fact of its being through being and from being. Therefore, if being is something different from God, a thing has its being from something other than God. Besides, there is nothing prior to being because that which confers being creates and is a creator. To create is to give being out of nothing” - Meister Eckhart “God and Godhead are as different as earth is from heaven. Moreover I declare: the outward and the inward man are as different, too, as earth and heaven. God is higher, many thousand miles. Yet God comes and goes." - Meister Eckhart "While I subsisted in the ground, in the bottom, in the river and fount of Godhead, no one asked me where I was going or what I was doing: there was no one to ask me. When I was flowing all creatures spake God. If I am asked, Brother Eckhart, when went ye out of your house? Then I must have been in. Even so do all creatures speak God. And why do they not speak the Godhead? Everything in the Godhead is one, and of that there is nothing to be said. God works, the Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do; in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. On my return to God, where I am formless, my breaking through will be far nobler than my emanation. I alone take all creatures out of their sense into my mind and make them one in me. When I go back into the ground, into the depths, into the well-spring of the Godhead, no one will ask me whence I came or whither I went. No one missed me: God passes away." - Meister Eckhart I'll need to come back to it later as well, so please by all means take your time, check the works, and finish the book. Just briefly though, Yes, your bolded definition of Godhead is better. It was more the tail end of the google definition I related to, "essence", but in hindsight you're right, the 'prior to' nature of it doesn't come through clearly enough in the google definition. And I want to highlight the following line out of your last ME quote, because it feels very much in keeping with some of the points I began by trying to make in this thread. It ties in quite nicely; " God works, the Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do; in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. " As with Niz … that’s where I'm putting Consciousness. My understanding is the Buddha did as well, albeit the terminology is different. Okay, I think I'm finally seeing your point (still don't agree though, hehe). I just finished the first chapter of Waite's book. He makes an interesting point about the teaching method of traditional advaita, where they use different models that suit different levels of understanding (and these different models at times actually contradict each other) as opposed to the neo-advaita method where they seem to have only one and the same answer for every student on every level. He also mentions the 5 sheaths model (levels of ignorance) which is basically a 6-layer-cake.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 2, 2020 14:16:09 GMT -5
I'll need to come back to it later as well, so please by all means take your time, check the works, and finish the book. Just briefly though, Yes, your bolded definition of Godhead is better. It was more the tail end of the google definition I related to, "essence", but in hindsight you're right, the 'prior to' nature of it doesn't come through clearly enough in the google definition. And I want to highlight the following line out of your last ME quote, because it feels very much in keeping with some of the points I began by trying to make in this thread. It ties in quite nicely; " God works, the Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do; in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. " As with Niz … that’s where I'm putting Consciousness. My understanding is the Buddha did as well, albeit the terminology is different. Okay, I think I'm finally seeing your point (still don't agree though, hehe). I just finished the first chapter of Waite's book. He makes an interesting point about the teaching method of traditional advaita, where they use different models that suit different levels of understanding (and these different models at times actually contradict each other) as opposed to the neo-advaita method where they seem to have only one and the same answer for every student on every level. He also mentions the 5 sheaths model (levels of ignorance) which is basically a 6-layer-cake. That's ok, and understandable. The position I've taken is pretty unconventional. To say the least. Doesn't matter anyway, the seed is sewn! Hmmm, I'm curious, …. is there perchance a level of ignorance that could said to be a requisite condition for the movement that is consciousness in that model?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 3, 2020 11:14:59 GMT -5
Hmmm, I'm curious, …. is there perchance a level of ignorance that could said to be a requisite condition for the movement that is consciousness in that model? The 5 sheaths (5 koshas) are said to cover up our true essence. So in order to realize that true essence, all these different covers have to be seen thru. The 5 koshas are (according to Waite): 1) physical body (anna) 2) vital force (prana) 3) mind (manas) 4) intellect (buddhi) 5) bliss (ananda) What then remains is atman/brahman. So the koshas are basically just different ways of experiencing reality or different levels of attachment that prevent one from realizing the ultimate reality or Self. Interestingly, the bliss cover is considered the most difficult to see thru. This may have something to do with the sat-chit-ananda concept that is taught everywhere in yoga, not sure. But bottom line is, the Self is inherently without attributes. And the sheaths are different levels of attributes.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 4, 2020 14:51:05 GMT -5
Hmmm, I'm curious, …. is there perchance a level of ignorance that could said to be a requisite condition for the movement that is consciousness in that model? The 5 sheaths (5 koshas) are said to cover up our true essence. So in order to realize that true essence, all these different covers have to be seen thru. The 5 koshas are (according to Waite): 1) physical body (anna) 2) vital force (prana) 3) mind (manas) 4) intellect (buddhi) 5) bliss (ananda) What then remains is atman/brahman. So the koshas are basically just different ways of experiencing reality or different levels of attachment that prevent one from realizing the ultimate reality or Self. Interestingly, the bliss cover is considered the most difficult to see thru. This may have something to do with the sat-chit-ananda concept that is taught everywhere in yoga, not sure. But bottom line is, the Self is inherently without attributes. And the sheaths are different levels of attributes. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 8, 2020 6:06:04 GMT -5
The 5 sheaths (5 koshas) are said to cover up our true essence. So in order to realize that true essence, all these different covers have to be seen thru. The 5 koshas are (according to Waite): 1) physical body (anna) 2) vital force (prana) 3) mind (manas) 4) intellect (buddhi) 5) bliss (ananda) What then remains is atman/brahman. So the koshas are basically just different ways of experiencing reality or different levels of attachment that prevent one from realizing the ultimate reality or Self. Interestingly, the bliss cover is considered the most difficult to see thru. This may have something to do with the sat-chit-ananda concept that is taught everywhere in yoga, not sure. But bottom line is, the Self is inherently without attributes. And the sheaths are different levels of attributes. 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!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 11, 2020 11:43:01 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.
@ 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?
|
|