|
Post by zendancer on Jul 30, 2020 1:52:10 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. Great quotes. Totally agree. Both internal and external nirvikalpa are effortless. I'm pretty sure that what Ramana calls "dead mind" is what Zen people call "no mind."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2020 5:33:33 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? S ome 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. These distinctions thicken the plot on the issue in terms of my mental map of the notion.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 31, 2020 6:21:22 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? S ome 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. These distinctions thicken the plot on the issue in terms of my mental map of the notion. Yes, it's hard to know exactly what these words are pointing to. Sekida writes about the "bamboo" breathing method that more quickly induces NS, and it's true that NS can be attained more quickly in that way. However, intense concentration, alone, also alters breathing, and extremely deep states of NS can be entered without any particular focus on breathing. One simply notices that breathing has changed from chest breathing to diaphragmatic breathing and slowed down dramatically as everything coalesces into a state of unity. This is prior to the "event horizon" when everything disappears yet awakeness remains. Breathing changes when one becomes highly alert, as if listening for some possible wild animal in a jungle, and even imagining that scenario will change how one breathes. FWIW, in the Zen tradition one meditates with the eyes half open and looking at the floor at about a 45 degree angle, so the eyes are not shut when everything disappears.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jul 31, 2020 11:19:28 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? S ome 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. These distinctions thicken the plot on the issue in terms of my mental map of the notion. I've never been in a catatonic or cataleptic state while in deep meditation. Ramana is in that regard talking about states I have not experienced voluntarily, only when being knocked out or drunk or in a fit of rage. During deep meditation my senses are still quite alert, more alert than normal, I would say. Any loud noise like a bell or a car backfire has a jarring effect. But you lose track of where, who, what you are until that point and where, who and what anything is. Sight is quite interesting, because you are seeing, as zd points out, but you are not recognizing objects. It takes a moment to recognize what you are seeing after the gong. It's more as if the interpretive (recognition) components of the brain turn off. You still hear, see, feel, etc. This is internal nirvikalpa, IMHO. External nirvikalpa is different and much more interesting in my view.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 31, 2020 12:02:25 GMT -5
These distinctions thicken the plot on the issue in terms of my mental map of the notion. I've never been in a catatonic or cataleptic state while in deep meditation. Ramana is in that regard talking about states I have not experienced voluntarily, only when being knocked out or drunk or in a fit of rage. During deep meditation my senses are still quite alert, more alert than normal, I would say. Any loud noise like a bell or a car backfire has a jarring effect. But you lose track of where, who, what you are until that point and where, who and what anything is. Sight is quite interesting, because you are seeing, as zd points out, but you are not recognizing objects. It takes a moment to recognize what you are seeing after the gong. It's more as if the interpretive (recognition) components of the brain turn off. You still hear, see, feel, etc. This is internal nirvikalpa, IMHO. External nirvikalpa is different and much more interesting in my view. That's interesting. During my experience of NS nothing is seen, heard, felt, or thought. A loud noise might bring me out of that state, as might a fly landing on my nose, but while in that state there's no sense of anything whatsoever except pure awareness without content. I think external NS would be the equivalent of Zen's "no mind," or "mushin," because the world is seen but remains undistinguished. The body knows what everything is, but there's no mind talk about that knowing. IOW, the world is imagined early in life as composed of separate things, and those imagined distinctions are internalized in the subconscious. Most people never think about the difference between the idea/image/symbol "tree" and what a tree IS. They take the idea as synonymous with the actuality. Only after passing through what Zen calls "the gateless gate" does one realize the difference between what things are and the distinctions that can be used to represent their isness. The idea is a noun whereas the actuality is a verb.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2020 16:12:58 GMT -5
These distinctions thicken the plot on the issue in terms of my mental map of the notion. I've never been in a catatonic or cataleptic state while in deep meditation. Ramana is in that regard talking about states I have not experienced voluntarily, only when being knocked out or drunk or in a fit of rage. During deep meditation my senses are still quite alert, more alert than normal, I would say. Any loud noise like a bell or a car backfire has a jarring effect. But you lose track of where, who, what you are until that point and where, who and what anything is. Sight is quite interesting, because you are seeing, as zd points out, but you are not recognizing objects. It takes a moment to recognize what you are seeing after the gong. It's more as if the interpretive (recognition) components of the brain turn off. You still hear, see, feel, etc. This is internal nirvikalpa, IMHO. External nirvikalpa is different and much more interesting in my view. Like you I've never gotten to a state where the senses completely disappear, but I have noticed that the feel of contact with what I'm resting on can recede - but it comes back in a flood if the thought as to whether that's happening emerges. Sound is an interesting one in that I notice that I can hear sounds that are further off in the distance. As I prefer to sit outside, I also notice any breeze more acutely. But in deep sessions, these sensations are both more acute, and yet, can start to seem as if they're coming down through a distance of a hallway. I also start to see various things against my eyelids that don't necessarily correspond to the Sun or the particles that naturally float around in the eyeball. Do you ever feel woozy or off-balance after standing up? Sometimes, I do!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2020 16:20:39 GMT -5
These distinctions thicken the plot on the issue in terms of my mental map of the notion. Yes, it's hard to know exactly what these words are pointing to. Sekida writes about the "bamboo" breathing method that more quickly induces NS, and it's true that NS can be attained more quickly in that way. However, intense concentration, alone, also alters breathing, and extremely deep states of NS can be entered without any particular focus on breathing. One simply notices that breathing has changed from chest breathing to diaphragmatic breathing and slowed down dramatically as everything coalesces into a state of unity. This is prior to the "event horizon" when everything disappears yet awakeness remains. Breathing changes when one becomes highly alert, as if listening for some possible wild animal in a jungle, and even imagining that scenario will change how one breathes. FWIW, in the Zen tradition one meditates with the eyes half open and looking at the floor at about a 45 degree angle, so the eyes are not shut when everything disappears. I have played around with eyes open/closed, but I find the fastest way to a deeper state is closed - and Sekida writes about that particular issue himself and admits, almost as a guilty pleasure, that he found an advantage to eyes closed. What I've discovered with eyes open is similar to what the maniac describes: a view toward the hands and feet (with the heavy arms) that is a sort of "disembodiment of non-recognition" .. but then again, object boundaries on a moment-to-moment basis never really went back to a hard sense after the sudden, unexpected Tolle-blowout. My guess is that there's a deeper - and perhaps ultimate - state involving the event horizon you describe. I stopped working toward or expecting that years ago now. If it happens it happens. I don't have any regular practice routine, and what I notice is that the first time I sit after a few months off can get really intensely deep.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 31, 2020 17:35:13 GMT -5
Like you I've never gotten to a state where the senses completely disappear I believe closed-eye samadhi where the senses disappear can only be understood as a) simply a variety of deep sleep OR b) nothing other than a description of a temporary state of Realization when the eyes happen to be closed. That's it. The first scenario is described in my quote near the beginning of this thread, where Maharshi says "The practiser 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)." In the second scenario, the "senses disappearing" is their disappearance in the same way that they disappear with the eyes open... except that the eyes are closed. That is, it's referring to the kind of halting of senses that is not the halting of the senses in the way that thought-thinks-of-the-senses, but that different perspective from which sense perception cannot be said to occur in Truth, even if it does seem to occur from thought's standpoint. RM shows his hand on this latter point in a couple of passages: #1: D.: Does Maharshi enter the nirvikalpa samadhi? M.: If the eyes are closed, it is nirvikalpa; if open, it is (though differentiated, still in absolute repose) savikalpa. The ever-present state is the natural state sahaja. #2: M: 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. D.: Is loss of body-consciousness a perquisite to the attainment of sahaja samadhi? M.: What is body-consciousness? Analyse it. There must be a body and consciousness limited to it which together make up body- consciousness. These must lie in another Consciousness which is absolute and unaffected. Hold it. That is samadhi. It exists when there is no body-consciousness because it transcends the latter, it also exists when there is the body-consciousness. So it is always there. What does it matter whether body-consciousness is lost or retained? When lost it is internal samadhi: when retained, it is external samadhi. That is all. #3: M (paraphrasing the Yoga Vasistha): In a forest, once a great Muni sat in the lotus posture with his eyes open, but in deep trance. A hunter hit a deer with an arrow, but the deer escaped and ran in front of the Muni into the bush nearby and hid itself. The hunter came in hot pursuit of the deer and not seeing it asked the Muni where it had gone. ‘I do not know, my friend,’ said the Muni. The hunter said, ‘Sir, it ran right in front of you and you had your eyes wide open. How could you have not seen it?’ Finding that he would not leave him in peace unless a proper reply was given, the Muni said, ‘My dear man, we are submerged in the Self; we are always in the Fourth State. We do not have the waking or dream or deep sleep states. Everything is alike to us. These three states are the signs of the ego and we have no ego. Egoism is itself the mind and it is that which is responsible for all the deeds done in this world. That ego (ahankara) left us long ago. Hence it does not matter whether we keep our eyes closed or open; we are not conscious of what is happening around us. That being so, how can I tell you about your deer?”
|
|