|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 27, 2020 19:59:54 GMT -5
A tricky and very interesting distinction is present in Maharshi's work between samadhi -- a profound state of concentrated absorption where the distinction between "I" and "not I" breaks down -- and laya, which is also absorption... but in which ignorance does not break down. Both are states or profound peace.
Samadhi can easily turn into laya, Maharshi says, so seekers should be warned. Elsewhere, however, he says that states of peace need not be interrupted. So which is it? Well, the answer lies in where the seeker is along the path. The mind has to be turned inward and concentrated, and various methods that produce laya can result in this; but the ultimate samadhi is not one that turns into laya, but is that which is seen when even laya is questioned, self-inquired into, or surrendered.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 28, 2020 9:08:09 GMT -5
A tricky and very interesting distinction is present in Maharshi's work between samadhi -- a profound state of concentrated absorption where the distinction between "I" and "not I" breaks down -- and laya, which is also absorption... but in which ignorance does not break down. Both are states or profound peace. Samadhi can easily turn into laya, Maharshi says, so seekers should be warned. Elsewhere, however, he says that states of peace need not be interrupted. So which is it? Well, the answer lies in where the seeker is along the path. The mind has to be turned inward and concentrated, and various methods that produce laya can result in this; but the ultimate samadhi is not one that turns into laya, but is that which is seen when even laya is questioned, self-inquired into, or surrendered. I wasn't familiar with the term "laya," but after reading about it, I'm still not clear what the word points to or how it relates to samadhi. Zen people sometimes refer to "empty mind" or "mindlessness" as an unfocused daydreaming sort of state, but it certainly wouldn't result in the kind of bliss that is associated with nirvikalpa samadhi. Mindlessness (if that's what the word laya points to) might be considered peaceful because it sometimes involves a cessation of thought, but I doubt that any serious meditator would confuse that with any form of samadhi. I also don't understand why Ramana would suggest that NS might devolve into anything like laya. NS involves intense concentration, and it only becomes a clearly non-ordinary state when selfhood is in the process of coalescing into unity. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 28, 2020 9:30:57 GMT -5
I wasn't familiar with the term "laya," but after reading about it, I'm still not clear what the word points to or how it relates to samadhi. Zen people sometimes refer to "empty mind" or "mindlessness" as an unfocused daydreaming sort of state, but it certainly wouldn't result in the kind of bliss that is associated with nirvikalpa samadhi. Mindlessness (if that's what the word laya points to) might be considered peaceful because it sometimes involves a cessation of thought, but I doubt that any serious meditator would confuse that with any form of samadhi. I also don't understand why Ramana would suggest that NS might devolve into anything like laya. NS involves intense concentration, and it only becomes a clearly non-ordinary state when selfhood is in the process of coalescing into unity. Just my two cents. Laya is simply absorption into a bliss state. Yes, it is a state of intense concentration. A bliss state is a state of unity, but it's still a state; it comes and goes. Laya does not lead to the destruction of egoic ignorance. Per Ramana, samadhi is laya -- for a seeker -- if one does not attempt to stay awake and aware in it, that is, to transcend even it. So nirvikalpa samadhi of the sitting, closed-eye sort, is, if it is unaccompanied by an effort to stay awake in it, to recognize that it too is a state, is simply laya. One could, as he says, be in it for a very long time, and not destroy ignorance. When samadhi is entered into and one is able to stay awake in it, and inquire into to whom the samadhi is occurring to... then one transcends samadhi as a state, destroys ignorance, and recognizes samadhi as one's permanent, unchanging nature. This is not a state. Samadhi as a state has to be made an object of awareness so that one can recognize samadhi as one's nature. This is true samadhi. This true samadhi can also be called sahaja samadhi or even sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, but this latter term should not lead one to it being confused with closed-eye nirvikalpa samadhi, which is merely a state. SNS refers to Truth. Regular NS is merely a state of absorption. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 28, 2020 11:22:07 GMT -5
Laya is simply absorption into a bliss state. Yes, it is a state of intense concentration. A bliss state is a state of unity, but it's still a state; it comes and goes. Laya does not lead to the destruction of egoic ignorance. Per Ramana, samadhi is laya -- for a seeker -- if one does not attempt to stay awake and aware in it, that is, to transcend even it. So nirvikalpa samadhi of the sitting, closed-eye sort, is, if it is unaccompanied by an effort to stay awake in it, to recognize that it too is a state, is simply laya. One could, as he says, be in it for a very long time, and not destroy ignorance. When samadhi is entered into and one is able to stay awake in it, and inquire into to whom the samadhi is occurring to... then one transcends samadhi as a state, destroys ignorance, and recognizes samadhi as one's permanent, unchanging nature. This is not a state. Samadhi as a state has to be made an object of awareness so that one can recognize samadhi as one's nature. This is true samadhi. This true samadhi can also be called sahaja samadhi or even sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, but this latter term should not lead one to it being confused with closed-eye nirvikalpa samadhi, which is merely a state. SNS refers to Truth. Regular NS is merely a state of absorption. Okay, but I'm still not clear about the distinction. NS is pure awareness, so there is nothing separate in that non-dual state that is capable of doing any inquiry. For there to be enquiry there would have to be a separate someone to do the enquiring, and that's not possible in NS. In the state of NS body and mind have fallen off and all that's left is pure awareness wide awake without content. I agree that NS is a temporary state and that SNS is permanent, so at least we can agree about that. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 28, 2020 11:52:15 GMT -5
Laya is simply absorption into a bliss state. Yes, it is a state of intense concentration. A bliss state is a state of unity, but it's still a state; it comes and goes. Laya does not lead to the destruction of egoic ignorance. Per Ramana, samadhi is laya -- for a seeker -- if one does not attempt to stay awake and aware in it, that is, to transcend even it. So nirvikalpa samadhi of the sitting, closed-eye sort, is, if it is unaccompanied by an effort to stay awake in it, to recognize that it too is a state, is simply laya. One could, as he says, be in it for a very long time, and not destroy ignorance. When samadhi is entered into and one is able to stay awake in it, and inquire into to whom the samadhi is occurring to... then one transcends samadhi as a state, destroys ignorance, and recognizes samadhi as one's permanent, unchanging nature. This is not a state. Samadhi as a state has to be made an object of awareness so that one can recognize samadhi as one's nature. This is true samadhi. This true samadhi can also be called sahaja samadhi or even sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, but this latter term should not lead one to it being confused with closed-eye nirvikalpa samadhi, which is merely a state. SNS refers to Truth. Regular NS is merely a state of absorption. Okay, but I'm still not clear about the distinction. NS is pure awareness, so there is nothing separate in that non-dual state that is capable of doing any inquiry. For there to be enquiry there would have to be a separate someone to do the enquiring, and that's not possible in NS. In the state of NS body and mind have fallen off and all that's left is pure awareness wide awake without content. Right, so that kind of NS is simply laya. The idea for the seeker, per Ramana, would be to not fully allow oneself to be absorbed into that kind of NS, but to stay at its edge, at its border, and to keep a small subtle piece of the mind awake, to keep a strand of inquiry going. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 28, 2020 12:33:57 GMT -5
Okay, but I'm still not clear about the distinction. NS is pure awareness, so there is nothing separate in that non-dual state that is capable of doing any inquiry. For there to be enquiry there would have to be a separate someone to do the enquiring, and that's not possible in NS. In the state of NS body and mind have fallen off and all that's left is pure awareness wide awake without content. Right, so that kind of NS is simply laya. The idea for the seeker, per Ramana, would be to not fully allow oneself to be absorbed into that kind of NS, but to stay at its edge, at its border, and to keep a small subtle piece of the mind awake, to keep a strand of inquiry going. I'd like to see the quotes from Ramana about that. If one were primarily doing self enquiry, then there wouldn't be any focus upon the breathing process or anything else for that matter, and if there were no value in NS, why would Ramana have spent such long periods of time in such a state? In the Zen tradition, as one example, the two main forms of meditation are breath awareness and shikan taza (alert attentiveness with no specific focus), and either form of meditation can lead to a non-dual state of NS that has nothing to do with self-enquiry. In that tradition people regularly see through the illusion of selfhood and also apprehend the infinite, so obviously that approach is capable of dispelling the illusion of separateness for some people. I suppose it depends upon whether one resonates primarily with self-enquiry or with some other meditative approach. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 28, 2020 12:58:17 GMT -5
Right, so that kind of NS is simply laya. The idea for the seeker, per Ramana, would be to not fully allow oneself to be absorbed into that kind of NS, but to stay at its edge, at its border, and to keep a small subtle piece of the mind awake, to keep a strand of inquiry going. I'd like to see the quotes from Ramana about that. If one were primarily doing self enquiry, then there wouldn't be any focus upon the breathing process or anything else for that matter, and if there were no value in NS, why would Ramana have spent such long periods of time in such a state? He spent long periods post-realization in that state... not because it had some separate value, but simply because that was his conditioning. His mind enjoyed it, if you want to put it in those terms, or it was his karma. From "Crumbs from his Table":
8 - Control of Mind vs. Destruction of Mind Disciple: When I am engaged in enquiry as to the source from which the 'I' springs, I arrive at a stage of stillness of mind beyond which I find myself unable to proceed further. I have no thought of any kind and there is an emptiness. a blankness. A mild light pervades and I feel that it is myself bodiless. I have neither cognition nor vision of body and form. The experience lasts nearly half an hour and is pleasing. Would I be correct in concluding that all that was necessary to secure eternal happiness (i.e. freedom or salvation or whatever one calls it) was to continue the practice till this experience could be maintained for hours, days and months together? Bhagavan: This does not mean salvation; such a condition is termed manolaya or temporary stillness of thought. Manolaya means concentration, temporarily arresting the movement of thoughts; as soon as this concentration ceases, thoughts, old and new, rush in as usual and even though this temporary lulling of mind should last a thousand years it will never lead to total destruction of thought, which is what is called salvation or liberation from birth and death. The practicer must therefore be ever on the alert and enquire within as to who has this experience, who realises its pleasantness. Failing this enquiry he will go into a long trance or deep sleep (Yoga nidra). Due to the absence of a proper guide at this stage of spiritual practice many have been delude and fallen a prey to a false sense of salvation and only a few have, either by the merit of good acts in their previous births, or by extreme grace, been enables to reach the goal safely.Sadhakas (seekers) rarely understand the difference between this temporary stilling of the mind (manolaya) and permanent destruction of thoughts (manonasa). In manolaya there is temporary subsidence of thought-waves, and, though this temporary period may even last for a thousand years, thoughts, which are thus temporarily stilled, rise up as soon as the manolaya ceases. One must therefore, watch one's spiritual progress carefully. One must not allow oneself to be overtaken by such spells of stillness of thought: the moment one experiences this, one must revive consciousness and enquire within as to who it is who experiences this stillness. While not allowing any thoughts to intrude, he must not, at the same time, be overtaken by this deep sleep (Yoga nidra) or Self-hypnotism. Though this is a sign of progress towards the goal, yet it is also the point where the divergence between the road to salvation and Yoga nidra takes place. The easy way, the direct way, the shortest cut to salvation is the Enquiry method. By such enquiry, you will drive the thought force deeper till it reaches its source and merges therein. It is then that you will have the response from within and find that you rest there, destroying all thoughts, once and for all. This temporary stilling of thought comes automatically in the usual course of one's practice and it is a clear sign of one's progress but the danger of it lies in mistaking it for the final goal of spiritual practice and being thus deceived. It is exactly here that a spiritual guide is necessary and he saves a lot of the spiritual aspirant's time and energy which would otherwise be fruitlessly wasted. Well, as I say in my video, NS -- as a state -- that is, laya -- can definitely quiet the mind... and then it is only the tiniest jump to go beyond. So it's almost -- but not quite -- enough to say, "get into samadhi over and over and stay there." The fact is that an inner guru can guide one beyond that (per the "extreme grace" Maharshi talks about above). Actually, the inner guru can guide one to the Truth from any place, obviously. But it is dangerous. As a rule, laya is not to be encouraged as by itself enough. This is why you have the old Buddhist story about the monk who meditates for years and years... and finally one day his teacher rubs two bricks together... and he is enlightened. Meditation alone can only get one to the quiet mind. From there, it's another leap. That's why the concentration on the koan. The koan is what "goes beyond" just the quiet mind. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 28, 2020 13:55:46 GMT -5
I'd like to see the quotes from Ramana about that. If one were primarily doing self enquiry, then there wouldn't be any focus upon the breathing process or anything else for that matter, and if there were no value in NS, why would Ramana have spent such long periods of time in such a state? He spent long periods post-realization in that state... not because it had some separate value, but simply because that was his conditioning. His mind enjoyed it, if you want to put it in those terms, or it was his karma. From "Crumbs from his Table":
8 - Control of Mind vs. Destruction of Mind Disciple: When I am engaged in enquiry as to the source from which the 'I' springs, I arrive at a stage of stillness of mind beyond which I find myself unable to proceed further. I have no thought of any kind and there is an emptiness. a blankness. A mild light pervades and I feel that it is myself bodiless. I have neither cognition nor vision of body and form. The experience lasts nearly half an hour and is pleasing. Would I be correct in concluding that all that was necessary to secure eternal happiness (i.e. freedom or salvation or whatever one calls it) was to continue the practice till this experience could be maintained for hours, days and months together? Bhagavan: This does not mean salvation; such a condition is termed manolaya or temporary stillness of thought. Manolaya means concentration, temporarily arresting the movement of thoughts; as soon as this concentration ceases, thoughts, old and new, rush in as usual and even though this temporary lulling of mind should last a thousand years it will never lead to total destruction of thought, which is what is called salvation or liberation from birth and death. The practicer must therefore be ever on the alert and enquire within as to who has this experience, who realises its pleasantness. Failing this enquiry he will go into a long trance or deep sleep (Yoga nidra). Due to the absence of a proper guide at this stage of spiritual practice many have been delude and fallen a prey to a false sense of salvation and only a few have, either by the merit of good acts in their previous births, or by extreme grace, been enables to reach the goal safely.Sadhakas (seekers) rarely understand the difference between this temporary stilling of the mind (manolaya) and permanent destruction of thoughts (manonasa). In manolaya there is temporary subsidence of thought-waves, and, though this temporary period may even last for a thousand years, thoughts, which are thus temporarily stilled, rise up as soon as the manolaya ceases. One must therefore, watch one's spiritual progress carefully. One must not allow oneself to be overtaken by such spells of stillness of thought: the moment one experiences this, one must revive consciousness and enquire within as to who it is who experiences this stillness. While not allowing any thoughts to intrude, he must not, at the same time, be overtaken by this deep sleep (Yoga nidra) or Self-hypnotism. Though this is a sign of progress towards the goal, yet it is also the point where the divergence between the road to salvation and Yoga nidra takes place. The easy way, the direct way, the shortest cut to salvation is the Enquiry method. By such enquiry, you will drive the thought force deeper till it reaches its source and merges therein. It is then that you will have the response from within and find that you rest there, destroying all thoughts, once and for all. This temporary stilling of thought comes automatically in the usual course of one's practice and it is a clear sign of one's progress but the danger of it lies in mistaking it for the final goal of spiritual practice and being thus deceived. It is exactly here that a spiritual guide is necessary and he saves a lot of the spiritual aspirant's time and energy which would otherwise be fruitlessly wasted. Well, as I say in my video, NS -- as a state -- that is, laya -- can definitely quiet the mind... and then it is only the tiniest jump to go beyond. So it's almost -- but not quite -- enough to say, "get into samadhi over and over and stay there." The fact is that an inner guru can guide one beyond that (per the "extreme grace" Maharshi talks about above). Actually, the inner guru can guide one to the Truth from any place, obviously. But it is dangerous. As a rule, laya is not to be encouraged as by itself enough. This is why you have the old Buddhist story about the monk who meditates for years and years... and finally one day his teacher rubs two bricks together... and he is enlightened. Meditation alone can only get one to the quiet mind. From there, it's another leap. That's why the concentration on the koan. The koan is what "goes beyond" just the quiet mind. Thanks. Now I understand the context of his advice. I understand NS in a different way, but I totally agree that NS is not the goal no matter how long it might last. I see it more as a state of internal relaxation and cessation of thought and perception that often precipitates kensho (seeing one's true nature). I would clearly disagree with Ramana about the permanent destruction of thought (if that is what he means) because thoughts are clearly not a problem after one sees that there is no separate thinker of thoughts and also sees what the source of thinking is. I suspect that what Ramana is pointing to is what the sixth patriarch of Zen called "thinking that is not thought" --thinking that is not self-referential in nature. Either that, or he's referring to what Zen calls "no mind"--the intelligent functioning of the body without an internal dialogue. I had simply never heard the term "laya" before and wondered what it was referring to. I certainly don't see NS as dangerous unless someone gets attached to the enjoyment of that state, and incorrectly equates that state with SNS. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 28, 2020 14:19:35 GMT -5
I would clearly disagree with Ramana about the permanent destruction of thought (if that is what he means) because thoughts are clearly not a problem after one sees that there is no separate thinker of thoughts and also sees what the source of thinking is. I suspect that what Ramana is pointing to is what the sixth patriarch of Zen called "thinking that is not thought" -- thinking that is not self-referential in nature. Either that, or he's referring to what Zen calls "no mind"-- the intelligent functioning of the body without an internal dialogue. I don't think it's quite either of those. It's more that he's pointing to the fact that it is thought alone that "asserts" that "thinking is happening." And it's another thought that says that that thought is happening, and so on, backwards into infinity. The whole sequence, if taken at face value, is ego. But if the entire sequence is recognized to be just a sequence, then, so to say, the first domino in the series never falls -- the first domino in a beginningless series! And that would be "destruction of the mind." For who then is there to say that thinking happens? It's very much the tired and yet timeless chestnut of the tree falling in the forest... If thinking happens but no one is there to "hear it" -- can it be said to happen? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2020 14:43:35 GMT -5
Laya is simply absorption into a bliss state. Yes, it is a state of intense concentration. A bliss state is a state of unity, but it's still a state; it comes and goes. Laya does not lead to the destruction of egoic ignorance. Per Ramana, samadhi is laya -- for a seeker -- if one does not attempt to stay awake and aware in it, that is, to transcend even it. So nirvikalpa samadhi of the sitting, closed-eye sort, is, if it is unaccompanied by an effort to stay awake in it, to recognize that it too is a state, is simply laya. One could, as he says, be in it for a very long time, and not destroy ignorance. When samadhi is entered into and one is able to stay awake in it, and inquire into to whom the samadhi is occurring to... then one transcends samadhi as a state, destroys ignorance, and recognizes samadhi as one's permanent, unchanging nature. This is not a state. Samadhi as a state has to be made an object of awareness so that one can recognize samadhi as one's nature. This is true samadhi. This true samadhi can also be called sahaja samadhi or even sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, but this latter term should not lead one to it being confused with closed-eye nirvikalpa samadhi, which is merely a state. SNS refers to Truth. Regular NS is merely a state of absorption. This prescription to maintain alert curiosity - even during sitting meditation - seems evocative of a running theme in your material, reminiscent to me of Low's "arouse the mind, without allowing it to rest anywhere". The absorbed / bliss state is one that almost everyone - but definitely not everyone - has a point of reference for. And there's a commonality between active and passive versions of it. Conventionally speaking, the old cliche, "time flies when you're having fun" illuminates, as does "losing oneself in their work". What I've read of what Ramana said is quite clear as to the nature of "I": that the common state for most people is a sense of identity premised on falsehood. It probably takes a temporary glimpse into the fact of that falsity for this distinction between lala and samadhi to become clear, and a curiosity as to the nature of identity based on that clarity to pursue inquiry into "what is it that is absorbed, and what is it absorbed, into?". Americans benefit from yoga and meditation, from the calming and other heath effects. But most of them probably never consider the question of self-inquiry, and, in the final analysis, that's what I take this distinction between "lala" and samadhi to be about. It's actually not that new a cultural phenomenon in the West (as in, there are ancient roots to it in Europe), it's just that people taking up the Eastern practices makes it all the more clear what's going on. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2020 14:45:50 GMT -5
Laya is simply absorption into a bliss state. Yes, it is a state of intense concentration. A bliss state is a state of unity, but it's still a state; it comes and goes. Laya does not lead to the destruction of egoic ignorance. Per Ramana, samadhi is laya -- for a seeker -- if one does not attempt to stay awake and aware in it, that is, to transcend even it. So nirvikalpa samadhi of the sitting, closed-eye sort, is, if it is unaccompanied by an effort to stay awake in it, to recognize that it too is a state, is simply laya. One could, as he says, be in it for a very long time, and not destroy ignorance. When samadhi is entered into and one is able to stay awake in it, and inquire into to whom the samadhi is occurring to... then one transcends samadhi as a state, destroys ignorance, and recognizes samadhi as one's permanent, unchanging nature. This is not a state. Samadhi as a state has to be made an object of awareness so that one can recognize samadhi as one's nature. This is true samadhi. This true samadhi can also be called sahaja samadhi or even sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, but this latter term should not lead one to it being confused with closed-eye nirvikalpa samadhi, which is merely a state. SNS refers to Truth. Regular NS is merely a state of absorption. Okay, but I'm still not clear about the distinction. NS is pure awareness, so there is nothing separate in that non-dual state that is capable of doing any inquiry. For there to be enquiry there would have to be a separate someone to do the enquiring, and that's not possible in NS. In the state of NS body and mind have fallen off and all that's left is pure awareness wide awake without content. I agree that NS is a temporary state and that SNS is permanent, so at least we can agree about that. Were you ever exposed to Ramana or Niz prior to that meeting with the Zen master who told you NS wouldn't result in what you were seeking? |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 28, 2020 14:54:24 GMT -5
This prescription to maintain alert curiosity - even during sitting meditation - seems evocative of a running theme in your material, reminiscent to me of Low's "arouse the mind, without allowing it to rest anywhere". Yes indeed. A very good point. These distinctions are often not made clear enough. Bingo. Though I have to say, even with temporary glimpses people can often be misled on this point... because of the temporarily identity-obscuring nature of laya. It can seem in retrospect like 'that was it, the 'I' seemed to disappear'... and that simply extending that state forever is the goal. Thus Ramana's point about the utility for most people of a teacher at that point. Exactly. So often meditation has become purely about health and wellness, with only a passing nod to the idea that it might also be about something more. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 28, 2020 15:36:51 GMT -5
Okay, but I'm still not clear about the distinction. NS is pure awareness, so there is nothing separate in that non-dual state that is capable of doing any inquiry. For there to be enquiry there would have to be a separate someone to do the enquiring, and that's not possible in NS. In the state of NS body and mind have fallen off and all that's left is pure awareness wide awake without content. I agree that NS is a temporary state and that SNS is permanent, so at least we can agree about that. Were you ever exposed to Ramana or Niz prior to that meeting with the Zen master who told you NS wouldn't result in what you were seeking? Sure, but in retrospect I now understand what the ZM was trying to convey, however poorly he conveyed it. The important thing at that time, whether he was correct or not, was that I accepted his answer, and that left me with nothing to do other than what I was already doing--ATA-T. I decided that if ATA-T wouldn't lead to freedom, then I'd never find freedom because I intended to continue with that activity. ATST I had a growing intuitive certainty that ATA-T would eventually collapse the thought structure of selfhood even though I didn't think of selfhood specifically as a thought structure at that time. It seemed to me that ATA-T was reversing the process of intellection that had led to the sense of being a SVP, so I saw no reason to quit, and I knew of nothing else that seemed to offer a greater likelihood of success. Zen has a koan about samadhi that points to the issue of NS as a pathway, but I had already resolved that koan, and it didn't seem to help. The koan goes: "A monk sat in deep samadhi for innumerable kalpas, but he never woke up. Why?" Faye often said that she couldn't understand how someone could apprehend the infinite but not see through the illusion of selfhood. All that I could tell her is that that is a common experience, and I can think of many ZM's who experienced deep kenshos and yet didn't see through the illusion of selfhood until years later. Ironically, many people seem to see through the illusion of selfhood but never apprehend the infinite, and, like Reefs, I think that people often stop too soon on this path. For me, the story of Bankei and Dosha perfectly illustrates this issue. Dosha acknowledged that Bankei had seen through "the matter of the self," but that he "hadn't yet seen through the matter beyond." |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 28, 2020 15:42:16 GMT -5
I would clearly disagree with Ramana about the permanent destruction of thought (if that is what he means) because thoughts are clearly not a problem after one sees that there is no separate thinker of thoughts and also sees what the source of thinking is. I suspect that what Ramana is pointing to is what the sixth patriarch of Zen called "thinking that is not thought" -- thinking that is not self-referential in nature. Either that, or he's referring to what Zen calls "no mind"-- the intelligent functioning of the body without an internal dialogue. I don't think it's quite either of those. It's more that he's pointing to the fact that it is thought alone that "asserts" that "thinking is happening." And it's another thought that says that that thought is happening, and so on, backwards into infinity. The whole sequence, if taken at face value, is ego. But if the entire sequence is recognized to be just a sequence, then, so to say, the first domino in the series never falls -- the first domino in a beginningless series! And that would be "destruction of the mind." For who then is there to say that thinking happens? It's very much the tired and yet timeless chestnut of the tree falling in the forest... If thinking happens but no one is there to "hear it" -- can it be said to happen? Yes, when I wrote "thinking that is not self-referential in nature," I probably should have also added, "thinking that is not thought about." That's probably closer to what Ramana was pointing to. In this sense, thoughts that appear and disappear are much like blood cells going wherever they need to go.  |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jul 29, 2020 22:53:02 GMT -5
The quote from Rramana, below, resonates with me.
Q: What is the difference between internal and external samadhi?
A: External samadhi is holding on to the reality while witnessing the world, without reacting to it from within. There is the stillness of a waveless ocean. The internal samadhi involves loss of body-consciousness.
This is an interesting take on nirvikalpa. It also makes some interesting distinctions.
Q: I have read in a book by Romain Rolland about Ramakrishna that nirvikalpa samadhi is a terrible and terrifying experience. Is nirvikalpa so terrible? Are we then undergoing all these tedious processes of meditation, purification and discipline only to end in a state of terror? Are we going to turn into living corpses?
A: People have all sorts of notions about nirvikalpa. Why speak of Romain Rolland? If those who have all the Upanishads and vedantic tradition at their disposal have fantastic notions about nirvikalpa, who can blame a westerner for similar notions? Some yogis by breathing exercises allow themselves to fall into a cataleptic state far deeper than dreamless sleep, in which they are aware of nothing, absolutely nothing, and they glorify it as nirvikalpa. Some others think that once you dip into nirvikalpa you become an altogether different being. Still others take nirvikalpa to be attainable only through a trance in which the world-consciousness is totally obliterated, as in a fainting fit. All this is due to their viewing it intellectually.
Nirvikalpa is chit – effortless, formless consciousness. Where does the terror come in, and where is the mystery in being oneself? To some people whose minds have become ripe from a long practice in the past, nirvikalpa comes suddenly as a flood, but to others it comes in the course of their spiritual practice, a practice which slowly wears down the obstructing thoughts and reveals the screen of pure awareness ‘I’-’I’. Further practice renders the screen permanently exposed. This is Self-realization, mukti, or sahaja samadhi, the natural, effortless state. Mere nonperception of the differences [vikalpas] outside is not the real nature of firm nirvikalpa. Know that the non-rising of differences [vikalpas] in the dead mind alone is the true nirvikalpa.
|
|
