|
Post by lolly on Jun 23, 2021 19:42:52 GMT -5
Nice. Yep, there is not-self in terms of khanda are not-me and have no central entity, and a no-self in terms of there being no entity central to 'dependent origins'. More generally speaking, the words used shift meanings depending on their context and don;t really have a certain specific meaning (which is true of pretty much all words) so I just accept that not-self as well as no-self are intrinsic to Buddhist philosophy, and somewhere in between, like 'non-self'. Totally love your explanation there. It can be (and as you say, often is) used contextually like that, but I'm always mindful of the fact that no-self has the potential to become problematic quite quickly. Insofar as it just opens me up to getting *thwacked* by a zen stick or somat, hehe I think when we try to find the truth in discourse we are left with a contextual dilemma, which is to say, there is no 'actual meaning'. Some say there is a 'true meaning', as if there is moon which the finger points to, but it's more like the three aspects of knowing: you hear about it; you understand it conceptually and; you investigate for yourself to find out the way in which it is true. That subjective insight doesn't much resemble what was said, like there is or isn't a self, or if it means no, not or non. It's more like one of those things that is the way it is and not some other way.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 23, 2021 19:59:11 GMT -5
If you think about it, real, unreal are secondary notions ascribed to the actuality of experience, and 'this is what it's like' is entirely subjective, but also doubtless. Right. So, we can't deny that something is happening. A natural form of the existential question follows: "what is that?? ". Now, I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but the questioning can end, although it doesn't end on an answer with any direct expression other than perhaps through a form of poetry, and even that is hardly direct, and always personal and subjective - if true. The way that I'd put it, the answer doesn't come from the happening. The answer isn't found in anything that comes, or goes. So, some people will point toward that answer by calling everything that comes and goes an illusion. It depends on what they mean, exactly, just like when someone points toward it by saying that there is only One. I prefer to limit my use of the word illusion to apply only to what can be denied. That there is something happening, is undeniable. I think they just keep talking, making it up as they go along, and seem to be wanting something to happen later on while overlooking what is happening already, and teachers seem to be pointing at something over there. Most of my spiritual discussions are like, Once you this or that, then something something, and I'm more like, The actuality just the way it is. The question 'what it is?', 'why is it?' are probably natural verbalisations of the curiosity, but 'it is this way' seems more to the point.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 24, 2021 3:31:55 GMT -5
When do thoughts arise? Getting ready to clean the bird cages and prepare their food daily feels heavy and dull. Mind starts having debates about politics, physics, Reality to entertain and avoid the heaviness. Mind assuages pain, sickness, fear, boredom with stories. Not a bad thing. It glosses over the unpleasant. Much like a mother soothing a child in difficult times with "everything will be okay." Perhaps that's what starts it. How to undo this? Or should this be undone? Perhaps it's enough to notice. Or a start of something. That usually happens when you do something with only the end result in mind. And that's a sure recipe to miss out on life and then wonder how you've spend the last 10 years. There's a movie about this, Click (2006). Worth watching. Interesting flick and rather poignant at the end. Many years ago I wrote a short story with the same theme.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2021 14:17:38 GMT -5
When do thoughts arise? Getting ready to clean the bird cages and prepare their food daily feels heavy and dull. Mind starts having debates about politics, physics, Reality to entertain and avoid the heaviness. Mind assuages pain, sickness, fear, boredom with stories. Not a bad thing. It glosses over the unpleasant. Much like a mother soothing a child in difficult times with "everything will be okay." Perhaps that's what starts it. How to undo this? Or should this be undone? Perhaps it's enough to notice. Or a start of something. That usually happens when you do something with only the end result in mind. And that's a sure recipe to miss out on life and then wonder how you've spend the last 10 years. There's a movie about this, Click (2006). Worth watching. Yes. I was never interested in Adam Sandler until I watched this film. We don't choose to be unconscious, but it's a very good description of what-that-is. Any second is worth salvaging.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 29, 2021 9:19:44 GMT -5
Savigalpa samadhi in RM's version is mind resting in the heart with effort. This is the refocusing of attention away from mind chatter driven by desire. For the purists it is only Self-Inquiry. For others, it can be many different types of practice.
How it works is attending to the immediate instead of thought affords an escape from the mental world's reactivity. This is peace.
In RM's view, this is as valuable as sahaja because that is its inevitable destination.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 29, 2021 10:39:10 GMT -5
Savigalpa samadhi in RM's version is mind resting in the heart with effort. This is the refocusing of attention away from mind chatter driven by desire. For the purists it is only Self-Inquiry. For others, it can be many different types of practice. How it works is attending to the immediate instead of thought affords an escape from the mental world's reactivity. This is peace. In RM's view, this is as valuable as sahaja because that is its inevitable destination. Interesting. I never knew that RM had made such a comment. Purposely shifting attention away from mind chatter is certainly correlated with SR, but "this is as valuable as sahaja" is questionable. I doubt that any sage would want to exchange sahaja for savigalpa. With savigalpa the SVP feels undeniably real whereas with sahaja the SVP is seen as the butt of the cosmic joke.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 29, 2021 10:42:22 GMT -5
Savigalpa samadhi in RM's version is mind resting in the heart with effort. This is the refocusing of attention away from mind chatter driven by desire. For the purists it is only Self-Inquiry. For others, it can be many different types of practice. How it works is attending to the immediate instead of thought affords an escape from the mental world's reactivity. This is peace. In RM's view, this is as valuable as sahaja because that is its inevitable destination. Interesting. I never knew that RM had made such a comment. Purposely shifting attention away from mind chatter is certainly correlated with SR, but "this is as valuable as sahaja" is questionable. I doubt that any sage would want to exchange sahaja for savigalpa. With savigalpa the SVP feels undeniably real whereas with sahaja the SVP is seen as the butt of the cosmic joke. That comment was never made by RM. It's more my interpretation of other comments he made about savigalpa samadhi. Edit: apologies for the misspelling it should be savikalpa, not savigalpa. My memory is aging. Here's the quote from Godman's book that provoked my outlandish assertion about savikalpa. Q: Is nirvikalpa samadhi absolutely necessary before the attainment of sahaja? A: Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikalpa, is sahaja [the natural state]. What is body-consciousness? It is the insentient body plus consciousness. Both of these must lie in another consciousness which is absolute and unaffected and which remains as it always is, with or without the body-consciousness. What does it then matter whether the body- consciousness is lost or retained, provided one is holding on to that pure consciousness? Total absence of body-consciousness has the advantage of making the samadhi more intense, although it makes no difference to the knowledge of the supreme.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 29, 2021 11:11:30 GMT -5
Interesting. I never knew that RM had made such a comment. Purposely shifting attention away from mind chatter is certainly correlated with SR, but "this is as valuable as sahaja" is questionable. I doubt that any sage would want to exchange sahaja for savigalpa. With savigalpa the SVP feels undeniably real whereas with sahaja the SVP is seen as the butt of the cosmic joke. That comment was never made by RM. It's more my interpretation of other comments he made about savigalpa samadhi. Edit: apologies for the misspelling it should be savikalpa, not savigalpa. My memory is aging. Here's the quote from Godman's book that provoked my outlandish assertion about savikalpa. Q: Is nirvikalpa samadhi absolutely necessary before the attainment of sahaja? A: Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikalpa, is sahaja [the natural state]. What is body-consciousness? It is the insentient body plus consciousness. Both of these must lie in another consciousness which is absolute and unaffected and which remains as it always is, with or without the body-consciousness. What does it then matter whether the body- consciousness is lost or retained, provided one is holding on to that pure consciousness? Total absence of body-consciousness has the advantage of making the samadhi more intense, although it makes no difference to the knowledge of the supreme. Thanks for the clarification. I speculated that savigalpa might be another term for savikalpa even though I had never seen it spelled that way. Haha! AAR, I like this quote better. At one point I went to visit a ZM to ask if nirvikalpa samadhi might be the key to SR, but he assured me that it was not. I assumed that he knew what he was talking about, so I gave up on that idea. In retrospect, his response to me was less than ideal. If someone asked me that question today, I would say, "NS is not necessary for SR to occur, but it may be beneficial for some people." NS occurs much more frequently in the Zen tradition than in the Advaita tradition simply because the focus upon sustained meditation is so strong, and NS is a state that seems to loosen up the mind and makes kensho and other insight events more likely. A lot of ZM's consider NS to be extremely important, and Katsuki Sekida went so far as to say that it forms "the foundation of zen practice."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 11:42:58 GMT -5
[...] Here's the quote from Godman's book that provoked my outlandish assertion about savikalpa. Q: Is nirvikalpa samadhi absolutely necessary before the attainment of sahaja? [...] [...] AAR, I like this quote better. At one point I went to visit a ZM to ask if nirvikalpa samadhi might be the key to SR, but he assured me that it was not. I assumed that he knew what he was talking about, so I gave up on that idea. In retrospect, his response to me was less than ideal. If someone asked me that question today, I would say, "NS is not necessary for SR to occur, but it may be beneficial for some people." NS occurs much more frequently in the Zen tradition than in the Advaita tradition simply because the focus upon sustained meditation is so strong, and NS is a state that seems to loosen up the mind and makes kensho and other insight events more likely. A lot of ZM's consider NS to be extremely important, and Katsuki Sekida went so far as to say that it forms "the foundation of zen practice." I would like to know this “nirvikalpa samadhi” (NS), out of plain old curiosity, and desire to see for myself what you guys are talking about. The idea of going to barest minimum has always appealed to me - as the best way to solve a problem, be creative, understand a situation, and just drop unnecessary baggage. Anyway, I know that direct experience is the way, but I can’t resist a few word-questions… - Does NS require external silence around the body? Or can it happen with physical/perception stimuli around? - About the awareness that remains - how do you know it is not dependent on the human physical body? Perhaps it is some vestigial consciousness, not “thinking” about time/space but still dependent on the “brain”. - Is NS basically death? Logically, from at the descriptions, it sounds that way. If you are turning off (or away from) all body-based experience and identity, this sounds like "die before you die”. - NS is often talked about as a turning off of various things, but do you also experience a great intensification of something? Did a light or energy of some kind get a lot brighter when it detached (better word here?) from the physical body?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jun 29, 2021 12:49:42 GMT -5
[...] AAR, I like this quote better. At one point I went to visit a ZM to ask if nirvikalpa samadhi might be the key to SR, but he assured me that it was not. I assumed that he knew what he was talking about, so I gave up on that idea. In retrospect, his response to me was less than ideal. If someone asked me that question today, I would say, "NS is not necessary for SR to occur, but it may be beneficial for some people." NS occurs much more frequently in the Zen tradition than in the Advaita tradition simply because the focus upon sustained meditation is so strong, and NS is a state that seems to loosen up the mind and makes kensho and other insight events more likely. A lot of ZM's consider NS to be extremely important, and Katsuki Sekida went so far as to say that it forms "the foundation of zen practice." I would like to know this “nirvikalpa samadhi” (NS), out of plain old curiosity, and desire to see for myself what you guys are talking about. The idea of going to barest minimum has always appealed to me - as the best way to solve a problem, be creative, understand a situation, and just drop unnecessary baggage. Anyway, I know that direct experience is the way, but I can’t resist a few word-questions… - Does NS require external silence around the body? Or can it happen with physical/perception stimuli around? - About the awareness that remains - how do you know it is not dependent on the human physical body? Perhaps it is some vestigial consciousness, not “thinking” about time/space but still dependent on the “brain”. - Is NS basically death? Logically, from at the descriptions, it sounds that way. If you are turning off (or away from) all body-based experience and identity, this sounds like "die before you die”. - NS is often talked about as a turning off of various things, but do you also experience a great intensification of something? Did a light or energy of some kind get a lot brighter when it detached (better word here?) from the physical body? NS is just an intense concentration state. Ever been intensely focused on something, and everything except that thing blurs into the background? And in fact, that thing kind of disappears too... because your mind is so absorbed in it that it doesn't even notice it's something separate?
That's an intense concentration state. If there is still some effort involved in keeping up the concentration, that means the mind is still flickering... and so it's not exactly samadhi yet. It would be called "dhyana" basically -- effortful concentration on something.
When the concentration becomes so intense that you skate onto smooth ice and things become effortless, that's a samadhi state.
When the eyes are closed and the concentration is on something internal, the senses get blocked out... and you get nirvikalpa samadhi.
When the eyes are open and you're involved in something, that same concentration state is called savikalpa samadhi -- or what is also called a state of "flow."
When it's no longer a matter of concentrating on one thing or another, but there is a continuous recognition that underlying any particular thing you can concentrate on, there is something permanent... then that is called sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi ("natural" samadhi). That happens eyes open, eyes closed, regardless of activity.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 29, 2021 12:59:00 GMT -5
[...] AAR, I like this quote better. At one point I went to visit a ZM to ask if nirvikalpa samadhi might be the key to SR, but he assured me that it was not. I assumed that he knew what he was talking about, so I gave up on that idea. In retrospect, his response to me was less than ideal. If someone asked me that question today, I would say, "NS is not necessary for SR to occur, but it may be beneficial for some people." NS occurs much more frequently in the Zen tradition than in the Advaita tradition simply because the focus upon sustained meditation is so strong, and NS is a state that seems to loosen up the mind and makes kensho and other insight events more likely. A lot of ZM's consider NS to be extremely important, and Katsuki Sekida went so far as to say that it forms "the foundation of zen practice." I would like to know this “nirvikalpa samadhi” (NS), out of plain old curiosity, and desire to see for myself what you guys are talking about. The idea of going to barest minimum has always appealed to me - as the best way to solve a problem, be creative, understand a situation, and just drop unnecessary baggage. Anyway, I know that direct experience is the way, but I can’t resist a few word-questions… - Does NS require external silence around the body? Or can it happen with physical/perception stimuli around? - About the awareness that remains - how do you know it is not dependent on the human physical body? Perhaps it is some vestigial consciousness, not “thinking” about time/space but still dependent on the “brain”. - Is NS basically death? Logically, from at the descriptions, it sounds that way. If you are turning off (or away from) all body-based experience and identity, this sounds like "die before you die”. - NS is often talked about as a turning off of various things, but do you also experience a great intensification of something? Did a light or energy of some kind get a lot brighter when it detached (better word here?) from the physical body? NS occurs when one intensely focuses upon something. Zen people have several practices that can lead to NS. These include: watching the breath, following the breath, feeling the breath, being the breath, shikan taza (alert attention with no focus), etc. I suspect that listening to universal sound will also do that, but I've never gotten into NS in that way. Contemplation, such as contemplating Mu, will also do it. Imagine that you're sitting and doing all of the things that Zen teachers advise beginning meditators to do, such as unfocusing the eyes, breathing via the diaphragm versus the chest, expelling more air than usual on the out breath, breathing more slowly than usual, etc. Then imagine watching the breathing process with great concentration and intimacy--how air comes into the body and goes out of the body. If attentiveness becomes sufficiently strong, thoughts will slow down and often stop. If all else is ignored except the breathing process, and attentiveness is extremely focused, there will usually be the start of an unusual feeling some of us call "the off sensation." It usually begins on the backs of the hands, and there will be a skin-surface numbness that will gradually spread up the arms to the shoulders, neck, and head. This can be distinctly felt. It almost feels as if the body is freezing into a solid block of ice, and there is a distinct sensation of coolness. If concentration continues, a point will be reached that is something like an event horizon, and when that point is passed, everything will begin to disappear except pure awareness. With beginning meditators who've read about NS, thoughts may arise when the initial somatic phenomena begin, but if such thoughts are ignored and attention stays with the focus of awareness, NS will continue to deepen until all thoughts and all perceptions have totally ceased. I've likened the entry into deep NS to be much like awareness sinking to the bottom of a still silent seafloor. There is no movement at all, and there is absolutely no body consciousness. There is only pure awareness without content, and that state of awareness is extremely blissful even though there is no knowledge of anyone present who feels the bliss. Zen people call NS "the falling off of body and mind." Typically, meditators remain in that state somewhere between thirty minutes and two or three hours. On long retreats some meditators have remained in that state for one or two days before exiting. Entering and exiting NS does not feel as if either entry or exit is "caused" by the meditator. It is felt to be more like grace upon entry, and the exit is more like waking up from an extremely restful nap. The only difference is that one wasn't asleep. In NS one is wide awake even though there is no time, space, thought, perception, or content of any kind. There is no light or energy of any kind associated with NS; that state is entirely empty of everything except pure awareness. Most people who experience NS do so while sitting, but Ramakrishna apparently fell into that state quite often while standing. He is an outlier in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 29, 2021 12:59:58 GMT -5
I would like to know this “nirvikalpa samadhi” (NS), out of plain old curiosity, and desire to see for myself what you guys are talking about. The idea of going to barest minimum has always appealed to me - as the best way to solve a problem, be creative, understand a situation, and just drop unnecessary baggage. Anyway, I know that direct experience is the way, but I can’t resist a few word-questions… - Does NS require external silence around the body? Or can it happen with physical/perception stimuli around? - About the awareness that remains - how do you know it is not dependent on the human physical body? Perhaps it is some vestigial consciousness, not “thinking” about time/space but still dependent on the “brain”. - Is NS basically death? Logically, from at the descriptions, it sounds that way. If you are turning off (or away from) all body-based experience and identity, this sounds like "die before you die”. - NS is often talked about as a turning off of various things, but do you also experience a great intensification of something? Did a light or energy of some kind get a lot brighter when it detached (better word here?) from the physical body? NS is just an intense concentration state. Ever been intensely focused on something, and everything except that thing blurs into the background? And in fact, that thing kind of disappears too... because your mind is so absorbed in it that it doesn't even notice it's something separate?
That's an intense concentration state. If there is still some effort involved in keeping up the concentration, that means the mind is still flickering... and so it's not exactly samadhi yet. It would be called "dhyana" basically -- effortful concentration on something. When the concentration becomes so intense that you skate onto smooth ice and things become effortless, that's a samadhi state.
When the eyes are closed and the concentration is on something internal, the senses get blocked out... and you get nirvikalpa samadhi.
When the eyes are open and you're involved in something, that same concentration state is called savikalpa samadhi -- or what is also called a state of "flow." When it's no longer a matter of concentrating on one thing or another, but there is a continuous recognition that underlying any particular thing you can concentrate on, there is something permanent... then that is called sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi ("natural" samadhi). That happens eyes open, eyes closed, regardless of activity.
Yes. Totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 29, 2021 19:27:00 GMT -5
That comment was never made by RM. It's more my interpretation of other comments he made about savigalpa samadhi. Edit: apologies for the misspelling it should be savikalpa, not savigalpa. My memory is aging. Here's the quote from Godman's book that provoked my outlandish assertion about savikalpa. Q: Is nirvikalpa samadhi absolutely necessary before the attainment of sahaja? A: Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikalpa, is sahaja [the natural state]. What is body-consciousness? It is the insentient body plus consciousness. Both of these must lie in another consciousness which is absolute and unaffected and which remains as it always is, with or without the body-consciousness. What does it then matter whether the body- consciousness is lost or retained, provided one is holding on to that pure consciousness? Total absence of body-consciousness has the advantage of making the samadhi more intense, although it makes no difference to the knowledge of the supreme. Thanks for the clarification. I speculated that savigalpa might be another term for savikalpa even though I had never seen it spelled that way. Haha! AAR, I like this quote better. At one point I went to visit a ZM to ask if nirvikalpa samadhi might be the key to SR, but he assured me that it was not. I assumed that he knew what he was talking about, so I gave up on that idea. In retrospect, his response to me was less than ideal. If someone asked me that question today, I would say, "NS is not necessary for SR to occur, but it may be beneficial for some people." NS occurs much more frequently in the Zen tradition than in the Advaita tradition simply because the focus upon sustained meditation is so strong, and NS is a state that seems to loosen up the mind and makes kensho and other insight events more likely. A lot of ZM's consider NS to be extremely important, and Katsuki Sekida went so far as to say that it forms "the foundation of zen practice." I find the first sentence in his answer quite interesting. In a previous answer he describes savikalpa samadhi as holding on to the Self with effort.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 29, 2021 21:22:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification. I speculated that savigalpa might be another term for savikalpa even though I had never seen it spelled that way. Haha! AAR, I like this quote better. At one point I went to visit a ZM to ask if nirvikalpa samadhi might be the key to SR, but he assured me that it was not. I assumed that he knew what he was talking about, so I gave up on that idea. In retrospect, his response to me was less than ideal. If someone asked me that question today, I would say, "NS is not necessary for SR to occur, but it may be beneficial for some people." NS occurs much more frequently in the Zen tradition than in the Advaita tradition simply because the focus upon sustained meditation is so strong, and NS is a state that seems to loosen up the mind and makes kensho and other insight events more likely. A lot of ZM's consider NS to be extremely important, and Katsuki Sekida went so far as to say that it forms "the foundation of zen practice." I find the first sentence in his answer quite interesting. In a previous answer he describes savikalpa samadhi as holding on to the Self with effort. Admittedly, that's an interesting and rather unusual way to look at it, but his point makes a certain amount of sense. Any purposeful effort to shift attention away from thoughts in order to focus on some activity and thereby become one-with that activity is, in that sense, an effort to be one-with Self (what is). That's why Zen people are always telling new students to pay attention to what they're doing rather than daydream or reflect about what's happening. When it's time to wash the dishes, just wash the dishes! Both savikalpa and nirvikalpa samadhi are transient, but both can still occur in the natural state. IOW, someone who has seen through the illusion of selfhood, and is free from the idea that there is anyone who can make an effort, can still become absorbed in some daily activity (savikalpa) and can still enter nirvikalpa through meditation, but s/he no longer thinks that there is a separate volitional entity doing either of those things. From the POV of sahaja it's like everything that happens is just part of the flow of the natural state.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 21:47:15 GMT -5
NS is just an intense concentration state. Ever been intensely focused on something, and everything except that thing blurs into the background? And in fact, that thing kind of disappears too... because your mind is so absorbed in it that it doesn't even notice it's something separate?
[...] Yes. Totally agree. Thanks guys. Something Niz said aligns with my previous intuitions: “Be aware of being conscious and seek the source of consciousness. That is all. Very little can be conveyed in words. It is the doing as I tell you that will bring light, not my telling you.” So, do you think that can lead to NS? In that statement, it doesn’t seem like there is an “object” of concentration. But maybe in way there is; it’s just more of an abstract object, or a “mind mode” that you are focusing on staying with. ? Eg, "be aware of consciousness" or "notice being conscious". I meditated in two places today - public library and public park. Both places were very nice, and decent for meditation, but not super quiet. Kid noises, blowing wind, leaves, people or a dog playing. I’m not sure if, in those environments, I could get to a place with no awareness of the external world. Actually, maybe the bigger "distraction" is that in a way, part of me is on the lookout for people doing any strange thing, and I’m a bit self-conscious about appearing to meditate. For example at the park, when some teenagers setup a volleyball game in my line of sight, I got up and moved, because I don’t want to look like a creepy dude staring at young girls. In a monastery or safer place designed for meditation, that part of the mind could probably relax and turn off more.
|
|