|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 5, 2022 23:14:12 GMT -5
The difficulty in approaching the exploration you have put forth is that it seems like the discussion is actually to agree upon what the different samadhi states refer to in comparison with flow and deep flow. I do not have a running definition of the samadhi states, but it does seem you’ve shared them before. I’ll search back sometime, or maybe someone can point me to a link to them. It seems that either one of the states is always immediately available and/or explorable via meditation, where the subtle engagements with mind-body are more recognizably nuanced. But, in general, it seems that in either of those deeper states and/or shortly thereafter, one is prone to what are called siddhis. The instances of “no reflective thought”, “unseen electrical circuit”, “magnetic field”, “in the moment with no thought of past or future”, “no desire for anything to be different than it is and no self concern at all”, and other strange phenomena purddy much all refer to the 20 some odd number of these siddhis that Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras describes. All of them were broken down into three main categories: types of clairvoyance, types of psychokinesis, and types of mind-body control. At the same time, even though there’s a certain science to how they are nurtured and/or applied, he also warns against the pursuit of these siddhis at the expense of realizing Self (he stated as the most important, and I’d agree), because they typically would reinforce the sense of a separate self due to the pride, arrogance, and inflated ego. I had heard some version of this caution in different conversations while doing me own walkabout through the universe and, for whatever reason, took it to heart. I can identify 4-5-6 of the siddhis did show up for me, and I might even use them as tools on occasion, but not for egotistical purposes, which would be somewhat divisive of flow in how I regard it. With respect to flow and deeper flow, I suppose they refer to how much one is aware of and in conscious command of the context at hand and/or any sense of self that may or may not be lingering (brick layer versus some revered teacher). The different teachers mentioned were operating within a context of being possessors of some otherworldly knowledge that others were seeking, many of which were in a receptive mode for what they were expressing. In such a situation, the seekers had chosen to be there, to be open to the message, and to sometimes pay homage in the form of service or money to the community that formed around said teacher, for better or worse. In such a situation, the teacher would not really be all that challenged by context as long as their message and means of teaching resonated with the group. I think that makes sense. As such, one’s state of flow would likely depend on the context, which can grow exceptionally complex, depending on any number of factors. In some of them, it might require one to more heavily rely on mind (knowledge, memory, intuition, etc) to make certain adaptations to nurture one’s flow; whereas in others, it might be better to approach it from a deeper degree of emptiness, coming naked to the endeavor, tapping into an informative silence (nice one, Laffy). A meditative context can be a nice form of purposefully tapping into such an informative deeper flow, but there are occasions that arise when consciously sensing a similar flow in an almost dreamlike way in ordinary actions of life, though relatively less ‘deep’ due to the demands of the context. I assume it would be similar for even the greatest of teachers, depending on their familiarity with the context. But again, I’m not sure how the deep flow/samahdi is being defined. In my experience, it is nice to have a clearer understanding of the experiential mind and its limitations AND an appreciation for the vastness prior to it/them, which is why honesty and the potential for SR might be considered of higher value. Having the immediately available option of starting from a place of existential gratitude, nakedness, and fearlessness is always nice. Maybe, just maybe, I haven’t babbled to much for ya.  Maybe I can follow up with something a little more on target if this doesn’t add any value. Your babbling is always appreciated! My post was prompted by a discussion with someone who objected to a comment I made that was pointing to what I considered a "distinguishable difference" between the effortless state of flow following SR and what I remembered as a somewhat "deeper" state of flow immediately following a CC. His response could be summarized as, "There is nothing deeper than THIS." I agree with his response 100%, but ATST I suspect that the reported statement of Jesus in the NT, "In my Father's house are many mansions," may have been pointing to what I was pointing to. As one example, some people wake up from the consensus paradigm and never directly apprehend/encounter what the word "God" points to whereas other people do. What they apprehend cannot be captured in words, but "a shining effulgent darkness" (written by a Christian mystic) is one way someone attempted to point to it. THIS unfolds however it unfolds, but different human manifestations of THIS have widely varying experiences and realizations in the process of that unfolding. I hesitated to use the word "deep flow" because it implies that deep is better than "ordinary everyday flow," but I couldn't think of any words that accurately apply to what I was attempting to point to. I haven't read much about siddhis, and I would certainly not suggest that anyone chase after special experiences, powers, CC's, etc because such chasing would be a movement in the wrong direction and would enhance the sense of being a SVP seeking to go from point A to point B (when most of us would probably agree that there is no point B). I simply noticed in the spiritual literature that many people have written about distinct kinds of phenomena following kensho events that seemed noteworthy. I have also personally met many sages/teachers/whateverwewanttocallgthem who seemed extraordinarily clear following a powerful kensho event and attracted lots of followers who later fell back into the mind, got attached to various questionable ideas, and lost all of their followers. Initially they were "in the current" to use Ramana's words, but later they seemed to have lost that connection to Source. Various Advaita sages have a fairly agreed-upon list of definitions regarding different forms of samadhi, and I have a reference for most of them, but one or two of them make me wonder exactly what's being pointed to. For example, what's the difference between sahaja samadhi and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi? I use the phrase "everyday samadhi" to refer to the state of flow represented by the brick-laying guy. Artists and musicians, particularly, seem aware that when they get totally involved in their artwork, time, space, and selfhood disappear altogether for a while even if they know nothing about deeper meditative states of samadhi, such as nirvikalpa. "Being in the zone," for certain people, such as mountain climbers, is a state of unity consciousness that is often regarded as mystical in retrospect because they were able to do things that were seemingly impossible. As one mountain climber stated with considerable awe after summiting a sheer wall, "Something else took over and climbed that rock face because it was far beyond my capability. If THAT had not taken over, I would have peeled off the face and fallen to my death because I had reached a point in my free climb where I couldn't move in any direction and had no idea how I could save myself." That may not be an exact quote, but it's pretty close. AAR, flow is an interesting topic and one that perhaps other people can provide additional insights about. Re: siddhis, I think the whole point is that they are not special. They are our natural abilities, but we are unaware of it. But as with money, it can help make things easier but used unwisely, it can actually create more problems. You probably remember Papaji's story when he went into the woods to meet a famous yogi who could manifest his favorite dish out of thin air. And while Papaji was impressed and happy that he could eat his favorite food, he told the yogi that he was actually more interested in finding peace of mind than learning impressive skills. But the yogi said that he hadn't found that. And that was the end of the conversation for Papaji. Another interesting story I remember from Ram Dass, giving his guru some LSD: "If you are in a cool place and you are alone, and your mind is turned towards God and you feel much peace, it could be useful... [Your medicine] would allow you to have a darshan with Christ. But you can only stay for two hours. Then you have to leave.. [so] it would be better to become Christ than to visit him." |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 5, 2022 23:30:23 GMT -5
Your babbling is always appreciated! My post was prompted by a discussion with someone who objected to a comment I made that was pointing to what I considered a "distinguishable difference" between the effortless state of flow following SR and what I remembered as a somewhat "deeper" state of flow immediately following a CC. His response could be summarized as, "There is nothing deeper than THIS." I agree with his response 100%, but ATST I suspect that the reported statement of Jesus in the NT, "In my Father's house are many mansions," may have been pointing to what I was pointing to. As one example, some people wake up from the consensus paradigm and never directly apprehend/encounter what the word "God" points to whereas other people do. What they apprehend cannot be captured in words, but "a shining effulgent darkness" (written by a Christian mystic) is one way someone attempted to point to it. THIS unfolds however it unfolds, but different human manifestations of THIS have widely varying experiences and realizations in the process of that unfolding. I hesitated to use the word "deep flow" because it implies that deep is better than "ordinary everyday flow," but I couldn't think of any words that accurately apply to what I was attempting to point to. I haven't read much about siddhis, and I would certainly not suggest that anyone chase after special experiences, powers, CC's, etc because such chasing would be a movement in the wrong direction and would enhance the sense of being a SVP seeking to go from point A to point B (when most of us would probably agree that there is no point B). I simply noticed in the spiritual literature that many people have written about distinct kinds of phenomena following kensho events that seemed noteworthy. I have also personally met many sages/teachers/whateverwewanttocallgthem who seemed extraordinarily clear following a powerful kensho event and attracted lots of followers who later fell back into the mind, got attached to various questionable ideas, and lost all of their followers. Initially they were "in the current" to use Ramana's words, but later they seemed to have lost that connection to Source. Various Advaita sages have a fairly agreed-upon list of definitions regarding different forms of samadhi, and I have a reference for most of them, but one or two of them make me wonder exactly what's being pointed to. For example, what's the difference between sahaja samadhi and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi? I use the phrase "everyday samadhi" to refer to the state of flow represented by the brick-laying guy. Artists and musicians, particularly, seem aware that when they get totally involved in their artwork, time, space, and selfhood disappear altogether for a while even if they know nothing about deeper meditative states of samadhi, such as nirvikalpa. "Being in the zone," for certain people, such as mountain climbers, is a state of unity consciousness that is often regarded as mystical in retrospect because they were able to do things that were seemingly impossible. As one mountain climber stated with considerable awe after summiting a sheer wall, "Something else took over and climbed that rock face because it was far beyond my capability. If THAT had not taken over, I would have peeled off the face and fallen to my death because I had reached a point in my free climb where I couldn't move in any direction and had no idea how I could save myself." That may not be an exact quote, but it's pretty close. AAR, flow is an interesting topic and one that perhaps other people can provide additional insights about. Right. In my observation, the siddhis are things/capabilities that arise, and it is likely that, because they are quite mystically phenomenal, they became special things to pursue. That they can be replicated at worldly will is probably why a specialized science of them arose. It may be that there is something of a gray area that transferred to the idea of seeking enlightenment and that it can be attained by the person, and something that can emerge only through practice, much like the total 'selfless' involvement in an activity, including meditation. Mountain climbing and bricklaying would be more outward focuses of attention while falling into a flow, while meditation would be more inwardly focused, perhaps attempting to bring the attention to a point (while others may use it as a form of escape from their mind (to which the attention/unconscious identity is attached). It might be noted that when in such states of flow, it is only in hindsight in which the source of agency is applied, thus giving rise to the insight into whether there's still an unconscious belief in an SVP doing such things. That is, everyone who has ever lived experiences flow states (even while thinking) on a daily basis, but most have never noticed it. The self is never there, only unconsciously assumed as an overlay, and often it shows up in the reporting of things that happened 'to/from' appearing peeps, regardless of the fact that no one has ever actually found a 'me'. That is where ND comes in and throws a monkey wrench into the whole affair. That's kind of what I was alluding to in my earlier rambling. I'd be curious to see the changes in outward, observable appearance of flow (to an onlooker that report such observations/stories of them) if one were to drop a deeply revered sage into the mix of living life in, say, NYC and/or dealing with grind of running a business and/or the nuances of intimate relationship. But the fact remains, that flow is something that emerges as a lack of self-consciousness; the deeper sense of flow is alluding to being in/of the flow, and there is no consciousness of any self, which would divide and give an open door to the inherent fear. KNOWING is being a sense of THAT which is informing the mind of the inherent dreamlike quality of the world in which life in NYC, the grinds, and sense of other are actually falling away. I mean, everyone can be such a sage, but only if they are willing to simply look, and notice that unerring Truth prior to all 'truths' the mind conjures.Even science is 'validating' such nuances in the studies related to the Cosmological Principle, but perhaps hasn't/can't come to terms with its implications, much in the same way it approaches consciousness studies. I do wonder about such scientific practioners' minds when some of the deeper realizations might give them a flash, like when they keep splitting things smaller and smaller, but keep finding mostly space. Yet, they keep looking for more things, thus perpetuating the creative process. But, it is more likely that the momentum of their habitual studies about physical nature and/or the outward appearances that keeps things neatly out of focus, much like the pursuit of siddhis. But perhaps some of them do get a flash and do take it to heart, but I haven't really looked into it. There's that story that Newton burned a lot of his books before he died, but I do not know the full story of the whys. When IT dawned on the 'me', it was easy to appreciate at least one potential why. I remember when the Italian sadhu (heavily into Vedanta for decades) I had met was in the course of testing me (he told me later he was, anyway), that I told him that I had stumbled onto something I was not supposed to see, and I simply could not put it into words. That series of interactions went on for a couple weeks, and I had never even heard of Advaita at that point. I remembered thinking of several books that I would have no problem burning, if not for just a fun ritual of showing wondrous gratitude, hehe. I appreciate the symbolism of the eternal fire. 🔥 Agreed, except for this part. You are not suggesting that this is a matter of willpower, are you? Maybe you can clarify. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 6, 2022 0:09:47 GMT -5
Yes, it's worth looking up these terms in a Sanskrit dictionary for yourself. I find that different teachers use these terms in slightly different ways or different terms for the exact same thing. Which is probably where the confusion comes from and why I prefer plain English over Sanskrit. ETA: FWIW, I looked up the glossary in Waite's book. He understands Sanskrit and has been reading the vedic classics in the original. This is how he translates it: Waite writes: |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 6, 2022 7:59:24 GMT -5
Right. In my observation, the siddhis are things/capabilities that arise, and it is likely that, because they are quite mystically phenomenal, they became special things to pursue. That they can be replicated at worldly will is probably why a specialized science of them arose. It may be that there is something of a gray area that transferred to the idea of seeking enlightenment and that it can be attained by the person, and something that can emerge only through practice, much like the total 'selfless' involvement in an activity, including meditation. Mountain climbing and bricklaying would be more outward focuses of attention while falling into a flow, while meditation would be more inwardly focused, perhaps attempting to bring the attention to a point (while others may use it as a form of escape from their mind (to which the attention/unconscious identity is attached). It might be noted that when in such states of flow, it is only in hindsight in which the source of agency is applied, thus giving rise to the insight into whether there's still an unconscious belief in an SVP doing such things. That is, everyone who has ever lived experiences flow states (even while thinking) on a daily basis, but most have never noticed it. The self is never there, only unconsciously assumed as an overlay, and often it shows up in the reporting of things that happened 'to/from' appearing peeps, regardless of the fact that no one has ever actually found a 'me'. That is where ND comes in and throws a monkey wrench into the whole affair. That's kind of what I was alluding to in my earlier rambling. I'd be curious to see the changes in outward, observable appearance of flow (to an onlooker that report such observations/stories of them) if one were to drop a deeply revered sage into the mix of living life in, say, NYC and/or dealing with grind of running a business and/or the nuances of intimate relationship. But the fact remains, that flow is something that emerges as a lack of self-consciousness; the deeper sense of flow is alluding to being in/of the flow, and there is no consciousness of any self, which would divide and give an open door to the inherent fear. KNOWING is being a sense of THAT which is informing the mind of the inherent dreamlike quality of the world in which life in NYC, the grinds, and sense of other are actually falling away. I mean, everyone can be such a sage, but only if they are willing to simply look, and notice that unerring Truth prior to all 'truths' the mind conjures.Even science is 'validating' such nuances in the studies related to the Cosmological Principle, but perhaps hasn't/can't come to terms with its implications, much in the same way it approaches consciousness studies. I do wonder about such scientific practioners' minds when some of the deeper realizations might give them a flash, like when they keep splitting things smaller and smaller, but keep finding mostly space. Yet, they keep looking for more things, thus perpetuating the creative process. But, it is more likely that the momentum of their habitual studies about physical nature and/or the outward appearances that keeps things neatly out of focus, much like the pursuit of siddhis. But perhaps some of them do get a flash and do take it to heart, but I haven't really looked into it. There's that story that Newton burned a lot of his books before he died, but I do not know the full story of the whys. When IT dawned on the 'me', it was easy to appreciate at least one potential why. I remember when the Italian sadhu (heavily into Vedanta for decades) I had met was in the course of testing me (he told me later he was, anyway), that I told him that I had stumbled onto something I was not supposed to see, and I simply could not put it into words. That series of interactions went on for a couple weeks, and I had never even heard of Advaita at that point. I remembered thinking of several books that I would have no problem burning, if not for just a fun ritual of showing wondrous gratitude, hehe. I appreciate the symbolism of the eternal fire. 🔥 Agreed, except for this part. You are not suggesting that this is a matter of willpower, are you? Maybe you can clarify. Good eye, and it’s a fair logic chop. The looking could be considered a willful effort, I suppose, though there is no SVP to do it. But noticing emerges spontaneously (i.e., grace), giving a taste of the Void of no other. Always interesting to observe what happens after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, … taste, as the illusion of mind’s control is persistent. Even the mind’s attachment to emptiness has to be considered a potential boundary to Truth, though it serves a function. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 6, 2022 8:14:37 GMT -5
Universe always creates something new! Natural flow includes that creation. You always find yourself creating something new, it could be a new building, or it could be a new software. It always wants to create something new. If you find yourself creating something new, then you are perfectly in the flow. You will find a joy while you are creating. When you say the "universe always creates something new", would you also say the universe is created, imagined, simply what's perceived,...? Curious. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 6, 2022 8:25:37 GMT -5
Yes, it's worth looking up these terms in a Sanskrit dictionary for yourself. I find that different teachers use these terms in slightly different ways or different terms for the exact same thing. Which is probably where the confusion comes from and why I prefer plain English over Sanskrit. ETA: FWIW, I looked up the glossary in Waite's book. He understands Sanskrit and has been reading the vedic classics in the original. This is how he translates it: Waite writes: Right, and it appears that each major school of Vedanta also has their own nuances to the terminology, even shtiti. I suppose that the meanings adopted are indicative of what resonates with or is intended by the user (speakers/listeners) at the time, so yeah, can get messy. ..🎯..That's a good reference book. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2022 8:28:12 GMT -5
Universe always creates something new! Natural flow includes that creation. You always find yourself creating something new, it could be a new building, or it could be a new software. It always wants to create something new. If you find yourself creating something new, then you are perfectly in the flow. You will find a joy while you are creating. When you say the "universe always creates something new", would you also say the universe is created, imagined, simply what's perceived,...? Curious. It creates something new, It creates a new building, new software! it always creates something new. Work seems to be effortless flow because passion is given. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2022 9:00:34 GMT -5
Yes, that seems to be the case. In every description of deep flow that I've read about it occurs after a CC or significant realization, and the duration varies with the individual from several days to several years. In some rare cases, such as Ramana and perhaps the Buddha, it was apparently permanent. Like you, I had a demanding small business to operate (with ten employees and multiple construction projects) when that happened, so sitting on a park bench doing nothing for two years or more was not in the cards. My marriage was saved by the "pouring concrete realization" that occurred several years later. I would say it's logical that it would be accompanied by a realization when it happens because it is the impersonal perspective. I don't trust those reports about Ramana though. I find the deification of Ramana by certain authors a bit weird. It doesn't ring true (and from an alignment perspective it is demonstrably not true) but it is also counter to Ramana's message. I'm curious, you both say it saved your marriage. How? Probably different realizations but Laffy can clarify/verify. The realization here was suddenly seeing how the idea of running off to a wilderness in order to regain a CC state of mind was keeping me separated from the truth of whatever was happening in the present moment. My wife's security had been threatened when, after a CC, I expressed an interest in giving everything away, and it was further threatened because she knew the story of the Buddha, and suspected that I might leave her and our daughter at any time and go off in search of the truth. I realized on that particular day that if what I wanted to know could be found, it would have to be found through the activity of everyday life and what this mind/body organism was already doing. I realized that my attachment to thoughts about running off to a wilderness was an escapist fantasy. This realization totally changed my perspective and shifted my interest back to my work and family at a time when my wife was on the verge of giving up on our relationship and leaving. The ND pathless path can take many unexpected twists and turns!  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 6, 2022 9:02:33 GMT -5
When you say the "universe always creates something new", would you also say the universe is created, imagined, simply what's perceived,...? Curious. It creates something new, It creates a new building, new software! it always creates something new. Work seems to be effortless flow because passion is given. Effortless flow is great! We'll just let the question go for now, perhaps. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2022 9:09:37 GMT -5
It creates something new, It creates a new building, new software! it always creates something new. Work seems to be effortless flow because passion is given. Effortless flow is great! We'll just let the question go for now, perhaps. It is effortless because we find passion in it. And the creative ideas which flows while we are creating is unimaginable, It perfectly feels as if someone within us is actually creating and we are witnessing the flow of the creation. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 6, 2022 9:20:15 GMT -5
I would say it's logical that it would be accompanied by a realization when it happens because it is the impersonal perspective. I don't trust those reports about Ramana though. I find the deification of Ramana by certain authors a bit weird. It doesn't ring true (and from an alignment perspective it is demonstrably not true) but it is also counter to Ramana's message. I'm curious, you both say it saved your marriage. How? Probably different realizations but Laffy can clarify/verify. The realization here was suddenly seeing how the idea of running off to a wilderness in order to regain a CC state of mind was keeping me separated from the truth of whatever was happening in the present moment. My wife's security had been threatened when, after a CC, I expressed an interest in giving everything away, and it was further threatened because she knew the story of the Buddha, and suspected that I might leave her and our daughter at any time and go off in search of the truth. I realized on that particular day that if what I wanted to know could be found, it would have to be found through the activity of everyday life and what this mind/body organism was already doing. I realized that my attachment to thoughts about running off to a wilderness was an escapist fantasy. This realization totally changed my perspective and shifted my interest back to my work and family at a time when my wife was on the verge of giving up on our relationship and leaving. The ND pathless path can take many unexpected twists and turns! Nice. Indeed, if IT ain't right HERE, right NOW, it ain't IT. And if it ain't, it's OK, if it is what it is and there's a maturing openness to understanding how the mind makes the boundaries. Even that realization can be a decent pinch in a dream. As I think I've already shared, I told my wife if we had met 1-2-3 years before, I assume she would have walked right on by, maybe have run. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2022 9:24:13 GMT -5
Effortless flow is great! We'll just let the question go for now, perhaps. It is effortless because we find passion in it. And the creative ideas which flows while we are creating is unimaginable, It perfectly feels as if someone within us is actually creating and we are witnessing the flow of the creation. What is it that finds/feels passion, and what is it that witnesses the passion? Contemplating that question might lead to an amazing realization. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2022 9:25:30 GMT -5
Probably different realizations but Laffy can clarify/verify. The realization here was suddenly seeing how the idea of running off to a wilderness in order to regain a CC state of mind was keeping me separated from the truth of whatever was happening in the present moment. My wife's security had been threatened when, after a CC, I expressed an interest in giving everything away, and it was further threatened because she knew the story of the Buddha, and suspected that I might leave her and our daughter at any time and go off in search of the truth. I realized on that particular day that if what I wanted to know could be found, it would have to be found through the activity of everyday life and what this mind/body organism was already doing. I realized that my attachment to thoughts about running off to a wilderness was an escapist fantasy. This realization totally changed my perspective and shifted my interest back to my work and family at a time when my wife was on the verge of giving up on our relationship and leaving. The ND pathless path can take many unexpected twists and turns! Nice. Indeed, if IT ain't right HERE, right NOW, it ain't IT. And if it ain't, it's OK, if it is what it is and there's a maturing openness to understanding how the mind makes the boundaries. Even that realization can be a decent pinch in a dream. As I think I've already shared, I told my wife if we had met 1-2-3 years before, I assume she would have walked right on by, maybe have run. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2022 9:26:14 GMT -5
It is effortless because we find passion in it. And the creative ideas which flows while we are creating is unimaginable, It perfectly feels as if someone within us is actually creating and we are witnessing the flow of the creation. What is it that finds/feels passion, and what is it that witnesses the passion? Contemplating that question might lead to an amazing realization. I feel! Who else? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 6, 2022 16:12:46 GMT -5
Yes, it's worth looking up these terms in a Sanskrit dictionary for yourself. I find that different teachers use these terms in slightly different ways or different terms for the exact same thing. Which is probably where the confusion comes from and why I prefer plain English over Sanskrit. ETA: FWIW, I looked up the glossary in Waite's book. He understands Sanskrit and has been reading the vedic classics in the original. This is how he translates it: Waite writes: Right, and it appears that each major school of Vedanta also has their own nuances to the terminology, even shtiti. I suppose that the meanings adopted are indicative of what resonates with or is intended by the user (speakers/listeners) at the time, so yeah, can get messy. ..🎯..That's a good reference book. To me, to figure these out, the best way is to use something as a basis, a conduit for your tapping of your intuition and inner guidance. That something has to be something that doesn't already distort the knowledge you quest for. An asparagus bunch is a less misleading basis, conduit than any sage or dogma. In this respect, I value more a Sanskrit dictionary than I value a guru's interpretation of a term, both when they put in words their own beliefs, and when they try to interpret others'. You don't try to intellectually understand the meaning of a word, or phrase, but you treat it as a symbol for a concept. Every symbol can be interpreted on multiple levels, deeper and deeper (or higher and higher ), depending on where the seeker is situated on his infinite quest. For example, you can't fully trust anybody to interpret Ramana, and also you can't fully trust Ramana's interpretation of "the" truth. An asparagus bunch is likely to get you closer if you aren't arrogant, nor stubborn. ====== EDIT: This applies to forums too. Bouncing your beliefs of others is more helpful than arguing the merits of your beliefs, or theirs. From this perspective, those who just parrot a single belief are less helpful than those who can answer more nuanced. It is like bouncing your ball from a smooth wall, vs. bouncing it from a rugged one; dogma vs. asparagus bunch. |
|
Maybe I can follow up with something a little more on target if this doesn’t add any value.