|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 9, 2022 13:52:06 GMT -5
I was lucky to find the community I did back in '10. The whole ego game of claiming enlightenment hadn't even occurred to me until it became clear this was a major interest to some folks in that dialog. The clearest voices there resonated with the informing of mind that followed: what is realized is that the existential truth isn't a reward for hard work or good behavior, and that it's not going to make you a superpeep either. Instead, it's a simple, and yet subtle commonality among anyone and everyone. Nothing more or less than the awareness of being. Not anyone's fault that it seems so easy to overlook.  In that context, after more than 10 years on these forums, would you say that these forums are more helping or more hindering in the process of becoming conscious. Assuming that by "becoming conscious" you meant "better understanding of the nature of reality", I believe that ... it depends. These forums help those who use them as conduit to tap their individual inner source of knowledge and guidance. These forums hinder those who try to understand and follow the "advanced" seekers (both self-entitled, or democratically chosen gurus), inoculating them with limiting beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 9, 2022 13:57:38 GMT -5
I am not sure I don't misinterpret your question, but I control my focus of attention as I want, quite well. I can not-think about anything and focus on nothing, as I can focus on any combination of physical and or physic senses. Usually, whatever state of consciousness or whatever reality I am focusing in, I firstly ask my subconscious to suspend all my beliefs and expectations, which includes all thoughts too. I do this to minimize distortions. I can experience a state of expanded-awareness in which I turn on all the psychic- / inner-senses, in a state of openness with no expectations, no thoughts, no beliefs. More rarely, I include in this the boosting of all my physical-senses, for example when walking, but I don't find a good use for that state. If I just stay in the state of expanded-awareness, with no intent, I experience a feeling of expanded potential, of which I make no choices. I feel that I can touch any point of the wider-reality up to the limit of my current evolvement. I am somehow on the other side of my subconscious. That's not quite it. Because it's still in the realm of categorizing perception and experience. Although this is getting really close. It's an important question to ask and answer, because a reference for this state is necessary for a mutual understanding between us re: this SR business. Without it, we'd just accuse each other of making stuff up. accuse you of making stuff up (but, I believe that there are others who consciously and / or unconsciously make stuff up, which is detrimental to them). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 9, 2022 22:36:11 GMT -5
I can recognize "savikalpa samadhi" as what Albert Low suggested in his book, The Iron Cow of Zen. The way he puts it is to "arouse the mind without resting it anywhere". Evidently, he traced this as somehow paraphrasing the Diamond Sutra, but I've never picked up on that in my readings of the DS and haven't been back to Iron Cow since the first time I read it. Never would have had any interest in any of it without having experienced the sudden, temporary vanishing act of the phantom. You also gotta ask yourself what's really the point of all these finer and finer distinctions between different states of being. IMO, as Waite pointed out also, Ramana is unnecessarily confusing here with his vocabulary. Bottom line is, there's the natural state and you are either aware of it in this moment right here right now or you are not. Simple. No PhD in samadhi studies required. I've always hesitated to give the following quote, as it may give a wrong impression of the meaning of self-remembering. So I will follow it up with some other quotes about being conscious, or the meaning of what consciousness is. Unnecessary to say, from my POV*. "But the third state of consciousness, self-remembering, constitutes the natural right of man as he is, and if man does not possess it, it is only because of the wrong conditions of his life. It can be said without any exaggeration that at the present time the third state of consciousness occurs only in the form of very rare flashes and that it can be made more or less permanent in him by means of special training". ( emphasis sdp) pg 142 In Search of the Miraculous This is kind of for inavalan (and somewhat sree). The Self Realized here are 100% sure they are correct, no doubt whatsoever. That's the reason for Reefs recent post to you about mutual understanding, if you don't have a reference for SR then we (you two) are never going to understand each other. But I can dialogue here because I agree about everything concerning SR, up to a point, there isn't a self, no SVP, what constitutes self is based on imagination. For the SR, SR is the end of the journey. This is the point, I say SR should be the beginning of the end, not the end. IOW, there is a something else, which now isn't, but can be. But context is everything, POV is everything. I've beat this dead horse here for over ten years, so I'm sure I will not get anywhere with any of the old one's here, and I'm saying nothing new, nothing that I have not explored before. I just don't think inavalan or sree have a clue of the SR viewpoint. So I will give a brief description and then give some further quotes. self-remembering is a different state of consciousness, it's not something one realizes. self-remembering is not a one time occurrence and then done and finished. We are born awake but live among sleeping people, and adopt their conditioning, and go to sleep usually about age 4, 5 or 6, sometimes later. This is a necessary process, as the formation of the cultural self is necessary as an interface with the world, we are born as essence but essence does not know how to communicate with the abstract world, it deals with the 'concrete', and always right here, right now. So flow also is a form of sleep*. So what is self-remembering? self-remembering is the next step after realizing there isn't a self, self-remembering is the ~construction~ of a self, the true individuation. self-remembering is the beginning of the further, the something else which not-now-is. This partially explains part of the Madame Ouspensky quote in the signature. self-remembering is again living through one's essence, that which "a man is unable to say what he himself really is". So I was taught from day one that personality, the cultural conditioning, was a false sense of self, was what's called Imaginary I. And so (I was taught early) we are two, that which observes and that which it observes. If one *gets lost* in what is to be observed, that's sleep. If one can observe the manifestations, first, sensations, then the movements of the body, later thoughts and emotions, that's the beginning of waking up. It was never described what it means to be awake, we were just given practices (sensing, self-remembering, self-observation, division of attention, conscious breathing, non-identification) and shown to observe whatever comes up. self-remembering is working with awareness, self-observation is working with attention. If one is lost in a thought or emotion, that's sleep. Always, that's sleep, always. So nobody really approaches the Work without considering something is still amiss. What's amiss is we are asleep. So having glimpsed that we are indeed asleep, the aim is to expand the time-length of the moments of being-more-conscious. If one doesn't recognize these moments of being more-conscious and less-conscious, then there will be no interest, for them, in this teaching. That's just they way things are. Scattered quotes next: "The chief obstacle in the way of acquiring self-consciousness consists in the fact that they think they possess it. The real world is hidden by the wall of imagination. A man cannot awaken by simply having the desire to do so. It is possible to think for a thousand years; it is possible to write whole libraries of books, to create theories by the millions, and all this in sleep, without any possibility of awakening. On the contrary, these books and these theories written and created in sleep, will merely send other people to sleep, and so on. Man does not know of the third state of conscious, self-remembering, or even suspect it. Nor can he suspect it because if you were to explain to him what the third state of consciousness is, that is to say, in what it consists, he would say that it was his usual state. He considers himself to be a conscious being governing his own life. Man's possibilities are very great. You cannot conceive even a shadow of what man is capable of attaining. But nothing can be attained in sleep. In the consciousness of a sleeping man his illusions, his 'dreams' are mixed with reality. He lives in a subjective world and can never escape from it, this is the reason he always lives in a very small part of himself. Self-observation brings man to the realization for the necessity for self-change. By observing himself he throws, as it were, a ray of light into his inner processes, he has to be an impartial witness. You will then see that you can think, feel, act, speak, work, without being conscious of it. Your principle mistake is in thinking that you always have consciousness, and in general, either that consciousness is always present or that it is never present. In reality consciousness is a property which is continually changing. Now it is present, now it is not present. It is necessary to distinguish consciousness from the possibility of consciousness. What is the most important thing that we notice during self-observation? Not one of you has noticed the most important thing that I have pointed out to you. That is to say, not one of you has noticed that you do not remember yourselves. With you, 'it observes' just as 'it speaks, 'it thinks', 'it laughs'. In order to really observe oneself one must first of all remember oneself. Only those results will have any value that are accompanied by self-remembering. Otherwise you yourselves do not exist in your observations. In which case, what are your observations worth?" Ouspensky speaking: "I saw quite clearly that my first recollections of life, in my own case very early ones, were moments of self-remembering. This last realization revealed much else to me". In Search of the Miraculous pages 116-118; 142-146 Italics by Ouspensky. All results depend upon energy, a certain quality and quantity of energy, accumulating energy. Genuine practices are about saving energy and alchemically synthesizing a finer vibration of energy. This is the meaning of the Hermetic aphorism, separating the fine from the coarse and also becoming Hermetically sealed (which comes later). Self-observation saves energy, self-remembering synthesizes a finer energy. This energy is perceptible. All ordinary processes require energy and expend energy, and so the organism continually loses energy. We resupply energy every day through eating and breathing. When we have expended the energy created for the day, sleep comes. Sensory impressions are also a form of food, ordinary processes do not transform impressions. Other names for this finer energy are chi and prana. So, also, why this post here? It seems that savikalpa samadhi is a form of self-remembering, maybe. A little more specificity about savikalpa samadhi is required to know for sure. One last thing. I'm about 99.999% sure Dogen knew about self-remembering, of course not by that name. His, practice is enlightenment and enlightenment is practice, points directly to self-remembering. That essentially means, self-remembering (the practice) is self-remembering (the state). And his, To study the self is to forget the self, extensive quote, is about self-observation and forgetting the self means "forgetting" the cultural self/SVP/ego and "remembering" one's Buddha-nature or the unborn or who you were before your parents were born. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 9, 2022 23:21:50 GMT -5
You also gotta ask yourself what's really the point of all these finer and finer distinctions between different states of being. IMO, as Waite pointed out also, Ramana is unnecessarily confusing here with his vocabulary. Bottom line is, there's the natural state and you are either aware of it in this moment right here right now or you are not. Simple. No PhD in samadhi studies required. I've always hesitated to give the following quote, as it may give a wrong impression of the meaning of self-remembering. So I will follow it up with some other quotes about being conscious, or the meaning of what consciousness is. "But the third state of consciousness, self-remembering, constitutes the natural right of man as he is, and if man does not possess it, it is only because of the wrong conditions of his life. It can be said without any exaggeration that at the present time the third state of consciousness occurs only in the form of very rare flashes and that it can be made more or less permanent in him by means of special training". ( emphasis sdp) pg 142 In Search of the Miraculous This is kind of for inavalan (and somewhat sree). The Self Realized here are 100% sure they are correct, no doubt whatsoever. That's the reason for Reefs recent post to you about mutual understanding, if you don't have a reference for SR then we (you two) are never going to understand each other. But I can dialogue here because I agree about everything concerning SR, ... Thanks for making the effort! I agree with some of the ideas you presented or quoted, but I view them mostly from a different perspective.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 9, 2022 23:56:31 GMT -5
You also gotta ask yourself what's really the point of all these finer and finer distinctions between different states of being. IMO, as Waite pointed out also, Ramana is unnecessarily confusing here with his vocabulary. Bottom line is, there's the natural state and you are either aware of it in this moment right here right now or you are not. Simple. No PhD in samadhi studies required. I've always hesitated to give the following quote, as it may give a wrong impression of the meaning of self-remembering. So I will follow it up with some other quotes about being conscious, or the meaning of what consciousness is. Unnecessary to say, from my POV* .... All results depend upon energy, a certain quality and quantity of energy, accumulating energy. Genuine practices are about saving energy and alchemically synthesizing a finer vibration of energy. This is the meaning of the Hermetic aphorism, separating the fine from the coarse and also becoming Hermetically sealed (which comes later). Self-observation saves energy, self-remembering synthesizes a finer energy. This energy is perceptible. All ordinary processes require energy and expend energy, and so the organism continually loses energy. We resupply energy every day through eating and breathing. When we have expended the energy created for the day, sleep comes. Sensory impressions are also a form of food, ordinary processes do not transform impressions. Other names for this finer energy are chi and prana. So, also, why this post here? It seems that savikalpa samadhi is a form of self-remembering, maybe. A little more specificity about savikalpa samadhi is required to know for sure. - Question : May I have a clear idea of the difference between savikalpa and nirvikalpa?
Ramana Maharshi : Holding on to the supreme state is samadhi. When it is with effort due to mental disturbances, it is savikalpa. When these disturbances are absent, it is nirvikalpa. Remaining permanently in the primal state without effort is sahaja.
Source: from David Godman "Be As You are"
- सविकल्प savikalpa [sa_1-vikalpa] a. m. n. f. savikalpā différencié | phil. [yoga] qualifie le samādhi où l'identification à l'objet se fait en restant conscient de son identité ; opp. nirvikalpa.
सविकल्प savikalpa [sa_1-vikalpa] a. Mr. not. f. differentiated savikalpā | phil. [yoga] qualifies the samādhi where the identification with the object is done by remaining aware of its identity; op. nirvikalpa.
- स sa_1 pf. (pour saha_2) avec, ayant, muni de, y compris | (pour samāna_2) semblable à.
स sa_1 pf. (for saha_2) with, having, equipped with, including | (for samāna_2) similar to.
- विकल्प vikalpa [act. vikḷp] m. option, alternative, choix ; distinction, discrimination ; dilemme | hésitation, indécision, doute ; imagination, illusion | image mentale ; état mental | phil. l'abstention d'action ; opp. saṃkalpa | phil. [yoga] la conceptualisation, un cittavṛtti | phil. [Nyāya] analyse logique d'un concept, classification | phil. [Mīmāṃsā] ensemble d'instructions alternatives, à exécuter au choix ; opp. samuccaya | math. combinatoire | gram. alternative d'une règle de grammaire, option | lit. rhét. antithèse.
विकल्प vikalpa [act. vikḷp] m. option, alternative, choice; distinction, discrimination; dilemma | hesitation, indecision, doubt; imagination, illusion | mental picture; mental state | phil. abstention from action; op. saṃkalpa | phil. [yoga] conceptualization, a cittavṛtti | phil. [Nyāya] logical analysis of a concept, classification | phil. [Mīmāṃsā] set of alternative instructions, to be executed at choice ; op. samucaya | math. combinatorial | gram. grammar rule alternative, option | bed. rhet. antithesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 10, 2022 0:19:18 GMT -5
I've always hesitated to give the following quote, as it may give a wrong impression of the meaning of self-remembering. So I will follow it up with some other quotes about being conscious, or the meaning of what consciousness is. Unnecessary to say, from my POV* .... All results depend upon energy, a certain quality and quantity of energy, accumulating energy. Genuine practices are about saving energy and alchemically synthesizing a finer vibration of energy. This is the meaning of the Hermetic aphorism, separating the fine from the coarse and also becoming Hermetically sealed (which comes later). Self-observation saves energy, self-remembering synthesizes a finer energy. This energy is perceptible. All ordinary processes require energy and expend energy, and so the organism continually loses energy. We resupply energy every day through eating and breathing. When we have expended the energy created for the day, sleep comes. Sensory impressions are also a form of food, ordinary processes do not transform impressions. Other names for this finer energy are chi and prana. So, also, why this post here? It seems that savikalpa samadhi is a form of self-remembering, maybe. A little more specificity about savikalpa samadhi is required to know for sure. - Question : May I have a clear idea of the difference between savikalpa and nirvikalpa?
Ramana Maharshi : Holding on to the supreme state is samadhi. When it is with effort due to mental disturbances, it is savikalpa. When these disturbances are absent, it is nirvikalpa. Remaining permanently in the primal state without effort is sahaja.
Source: from David Godman "Be As You are"
One of the others could better answer, or they can correct me if necessary. In nirvikalpa samadhi only awareness is present, nothing else (for example, no thinking). And it's a heightened very alive awareness. But with that the case, one cannot function, cannot move, think, talk. And in savikalpa samadhi one is completely aware of surroundings and can completely function, as necessary. But this heightened very alive awareness is present. Thinking, feeling, bodily doing is not an obstruction to the heightened awareness in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 10, 2022 0:33:11 GMT -5
- Question : May I have a clear idea of the difference between savikalpa and nirvikalpa?
Ramana Maharshi : Holding on to the supreme state is samadhi. When it is with effort due to mental disturbances, it is savikalpa. When these disturbances are absent, it is nirvikalpa. Remaining permanently in the primal state without effort is sahaja.
Source: from David Godman "Be As You are"
One of the others could better answer, or they can correct me if necessary. In nirvikalpa samadhi only awareness is present, nothing else (for example, no thinking). And it's a heightened very alive awareness. But with that the case, one cannot function, cannot move, think, talk. And in savikalpa samadhi one is completely aware of surroundings and can completely function, as necessary. But this heightened very alive awareness is present. Thinking, feeling, bodily doing is not an obstruction to the heightened awareness in any way. I added to my previous post. Please review it. I believe it confirms your interpretation that savikalpa may be related to self-remembering. It means "remaining aware of its identity". I don't think it is related to functioning in the physical-reality, but what do I know ...? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2022 9:25:15 GMT -5
In the most fundamental sense all of life is an uninterrupted flow of being, but ND sages often distinguish between intermittent flow/samadhi (which I like to call "everyday flow"--the kind of non-reflective state that occurs when one becomes psychologically unified with whatever activity is being pursued), and a permanent state of flow that occurs after the illusion of selfhood is penetrated. What sages point to as "intermittent flow/samadhi" occurs because reflective self-referential thoughts eventually return, and those thoughts make it seem as if there is a "me"that is sometimes unified with whatever is happening and at other times appears to be a separate observer of whatever is happening. SR reveals that any apparent independently-existing states of mind, as well as the idea that there is a "me" experiencing such states of mind are cognitive distinctions, only. In truth, there is only THIS--a unified infinite field of being--that unfolds however it unfolds. If a human being meditates and by intense concentration and breath control enters nirvikalpa samadhi--a state of bliss in which body and mind have disappeared--, it is how THIS unfolds. There is no separate volitional person who sometimes enters or exits NS in the same way that there is no SVP who ever experiences anything. The distinction of "deep flow" is simply a potential distinction (and thus an imaginary postulation) that might point to something slightly different than the sense of flow that becomes permanent after SR. My curiosity is focused on what kind of difference there might be between sahaja samadhi and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, and whether those words are pointing to the same state or two different states? I'm curious whether Ramana ever clearly explained what he used those words to point to. In NS there is no body consciousness, no thoughts, and no perceptions whereas in SS there is body consciousness, thoughts, and perceptions, but no sense of "me" as a SVP. What, then, is the meaning of inserting the word "nirvikalpa" between the words "sahaja" and "samadhi?" If SS is pointing to a permanent wakeful state of flow, what is SNS pointing to? I suspect that Satch might have some idea about this if he happens to check in. I was using the term "deep flow" to potentially point to a state of mind that Ramana seemed to exhibit at all times but which many other sages only seemed to exhibit during a limited period of time (ranging from several days to several years) following a CC or breakthrough realization. Nirvikalpa samadhi is pure non-dual objectless awareness which is self-sustaining without interruption. But it is temporary. It is lost when one re-engages in activity and identification with objects is resumed. Sahaja samadhi is the permanent state of both awareness and the experience of changing phenomena as one unified flow. But one who is established in sahaja can choose to only experience pure awareness by completely withdrawing from mind and senses just like the temporary state of nirvikalpa samadhi. But because the state of sahaja is permanent, the state of nirvikalpa of one in sahaja must be nirvikalpa sahaja samadhi since one in sahaja who returns to the experience of mind and senses still retains experience (knowledge) of the source as the eternal witness together with what is witnessed as one indivisible flow of unity consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 10, 2022 10:32:26 GMT -5
One of the others could better answer, or they can correct me if necessary. In nirvikalpa samadhi only awareness is present, nothing else (for example, no thinking). And it's a heightened very alive awareness. But with that the case, one cannot function, cannot move, think, talk. And in savikalpa samadhi one is completely aware of surroundings and can completely function, as necessary. But this heightened very alive awareness is present. Thinking, feeling, bodily doing is not an obstruction to the heightened awareness in any way. I added to my previous post. Please review it. I believe it confirms your interpretation that savikalpa may be related to self-remembering. It means "remaining aware of its identity". I don't think it is related to functioning in the physical-reality, but what do I know ...? In my post I bolded can function as necessary, and (such functioning) is not an obstruction in savikalpa samadhi. "Remaining aware of its identity" is tricky. It doesn't mean in any way the small s self identity (which is illusory). For the others here it means Self (Ramana's use, capital S). For sdp, much different. Yes, it means remembering one's essence. I listed one of our practices, non-identification, it's a form of self-remembering. To clarify, self-remembering means not to be identified with the small s self, that's the beginning, Lao Tzu's single step. [This was the point I first made with ZD many years ago. Previous to that I had not written of connection with my tradition. But ZD described what another person had told him self-remembering was, it was completely incorrect, it dealt with the functions, at least thinking. So I felt the need to say that was incorrect, basically this person doesn't know what self-remembering is. So that let the cat out of the bag, and I began posting from my tradition-perspective. That was probably 9-10 years ago]. For sdp the journey is not a matter of Realization, expressed somewhat in my longer post above, it's "a journey of a thousand miles" (in double " " " " quotes). The small s self is the energizer bunny, it's job basically is to occupy our attention and awareness, to keep us from possibilities. For me, I don't want to imagine something that isn't, is. But someone else's journey is not my concern (unless). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 10, 2022 11:04:57 GMT -5
In the most fundamental sense all of life is an uninterrupted flow of being, but ND sages often distinguish between intermittent flow/samadhi (which I like to call "everyday flow"--the kind of non-reflective state that occurs when one becomes psychologically unified with whatever activity is being pursued), and a permanent state of flow that occurs after the illusion of selfhood is penetrated. What sages point to as "intermittent flow/samadhi" occurs because reflective self-referential thoughts eventually return, and those thoughts make it seem as if there is a "me"that is sometimes unified with whatever is happening and at other times appears to be a separate observer of whatever is happening. SR reveals that any apparent independently-existing states of mind, as well as the idea that there is a "me" experiencing such states of mind are cognitive distinctions, only. In truth, there is only THIS--a unified infinite field of being--that unfolds however it unfolds. If a human being meditates and by intense concentration and breath control enters nirvikalpa samadhi--a state of bliss in which body and mind have disappeared--, it is how THIS unfolds. There is no separate volitional person who sometimes enters or exits NS in the same way that there is no SVP who ever experiences anything. The distinction of "deep flow" is simply a potential distinction (and thus an imaginary postulation) that might point to something slightly different than the sense of flow that becomes permanent after SR. My curiosity is focused on what kind of difference there might be between sahaja samadhi and sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, and whether those words are pointing to the same state or two different states? I'm curious whether Ramana ever clearly explained what he used those words to point to. In NS there is no body consciousness, no thoughts, and no perceptions whereas in SS there is body consciousness, thoughts, and perceptions, but no sense of "me" as a SVP. What, then, is the meaning of inserting the word "nirvikalpa" between the words "sahaja" and "samadhi?" If SS is pointing to a permanent wakeful state of flow, what is SNS pointing to? I suspect that Satch might have some idea about this if he happens to check in. I was using the term "deep flow" to potentially point to a state of mind that Ramana seemed to exhibit at all times but which many other sages only seemed to exhibit during a limited period of time (ranging from several days to several years) following a CC or breakthrough realization. Nirvikalpa samadhi is pure non-dual objectless awareness which is self-sustaining without interruption. But it is temporary. It is lost when one re-engages in activity and identification with objects is resumed. Sahaja samadhi is the permanent state of both awareness and the experience of changing phenomena as one unified flow. But one who is established in sahaja can choose to only experience pure awareness by completely withdrawing from mind and senses just like the temporary state of nirvikalpa samadhi. But because the state of sahaja is permanent, the state of nirvikalpa of one in sahaja must be nirvikalpa sahaja samadhi since one in sahaja who returns to the experience of mind and senses still retains experience (knowledge) of the source as the eternal witness together with what is witnessed as one indivisible flow of unity consciousness. Satch: if I understand you correctly, you're saying that someone who has attained a permanent condition of flow/samadhi following SR (which is called "sahaja samadhi") may fall into NS (or choose to enter NS), and that is what Ramana is calling SNS. In that case SNS is identical to NS, but upon exiting NS there is no return to a sense of being a SVP. Is that your understanding? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2022 11:33:30 GMT -5
Nirvikalpa samadhi is pure non-dual objectless awareness which is self-sustaining without interruption. But it is temporary. It is lost when one re-engages in activity and identification with objects is resumed. Sahaja samadhi is the permanent state of both awareness and the experience of changing phenomena as one unified flow. But one who is established in sahaja can choose to only experience pure awareness by completely withdrawing from mind and senses just like the temporary state of nirvikalpa samadhi. But because the state of sahaja is permanent, the state of nirvikalpa of one in sahaja must be nirvikalpa sahaja samadhi since one in sahaja who returns to the experience of mind and senses still retains experience (knowledge) of the source as the eternal witness together with what is witnessed as one indivisible flow of unity consciousness. Satch: if I understand you correctly, you're saying that someone who has attained a permanent condition of flow/samadhi following SR (which is called "sahaja samadhi") may fall into NS (or choose to enter NS), and that is what Ramana is calling SNS. In that case SNS is identical to NS, but upon exiting NS there is no return to a sense of being a SVP. Is that your understanding? yes exactly right. There is a video on YouTube of Ramana going into deep samadhi. One might ask why would he do that when he is supposed to be established in bliss consciousness already? It's a good question. It's just a preference to do so that's all, to enjoy the bliss of being and nothing else. Ramana wasn't doing it to attain anything. That's the difference between practice and just experiencing what is by excluding the mind. So yes NS and NSS are the same but when objects are re-introduced and by objects I also mean personal self it is not seen as separate from the totality where witness and witnessed are essentialy not different. But why this choice or preference to exclude the mind and senses as if there was a desire to somehow enhance this bliss more than if it co-existed with objects. And that is because there will always be the faint remains of ignorance when experiencing objects and nirvikalpa is completely free of ignorance. There must be this ignorance for maintainance of the body. You can't feed yourself while in nirvikalpa. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 10, 2022 12:33:37 GMT -5
Satch: if I understand you correctly, you're saying that someone who has attained a permanent condition of flow/samadhi following SR (which is called "sahaja samadhi") may fall into NS (or choose to enter NS), and that is what Ramana is calling SNS. In that case SNS is identical to NS, but upon exiting NS there is no return to a sense of being a SVP. Is that your understanding? yes exactly right. There is a video on YouTube of Ramana going into deep samadhi. One might ask why would he do that when he is supposed to be established in bliss consciousness already? It's a good question. It's just a preference to do so that's all, to enjoy the bliss of being and nothing else. Ramana wasn't doing it to attain anything. That's the difference between practice and just experiencing what is by excluding the mind. So yes NS and NSS are the same but when objects are re-introduced and by objects I also mean personal self it is not seen as separate from the totality where witness and witnessed are essentialy not different. But why this choice or preference to exclude the mind and senses as if there was a desire to somehow enhance this bliss more than if it co-existed with objects. And that is because there will always be the faint remains of ignorance when experiencing objects and nirvikalpa is completely free of ignorance. There must be this ignorance for maintainance of the body. You can't feed yourself while in nirvikalpa. Understood. That's what I thought and thanks for clarifying. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 3:47:01 GMT -5
You also gotta ask yourself what's really the point of all these finer and finer distinctions between different states of being. IMO, as Waite pointed out also, Ramana is unnecessarily confusing here with his vocabulary. Bottom line is, there's the natural state and you are either aware of it in this moment right here right now or you are not. Simple. No PhD in samadhi studies required. I often talk to ND groups about different forms of samadhi for various reasons. First, everyday samadhi is something most adults can understand from their own experience (even if they haven't previously thought about it), and I use that as a simple example of getting lost in the flow of life. I explain that when one's attention becomes deeply focused on some activity, selfhood and the usual sense of time and space disappear. The sense of being a SVP only returns when self-referential thoughts return. In this sense, the sense of selfhood appears and disappears throughout the day as a result of whether reflective thoughts are dominating one's attention or not. When pointing to everyday samadhi of the bricklayer type, I'm suggesting that after one becomes conscious of that kind of flow and understands the importance of it, that can be a gateway to the kind of silent awareness that often results in realizations. ZMSS used to tell his students, "Just do it!" and that admonition is pointing to the same thing. Don't think, don't equivocate, don't wobble, forget the idea of control; become psychologically unified with life by doing whatever needs to be done and then doing the next thing that needs to be done. Second, people are curious about samadhi states that may occur during meditation or other activities, so I explain that everyday samadhi is relatively superficial compared to "being in the zone" and extremely superficial compared to NS. The bottom line is that any discussions about various kinds of samadhi are all pointing to the natural state and what might trigger a recognition/realization of the natural state and a penetration of the SVP illusion. I don't have an issue with that. My issue is with what some people here are doing with it. People need to get their own feet wet. Nothing else will do. But what I see them doing instead is quoting guys like Ramana on how wet feet experiences are supposed to look like. And Ramana can't even speak plain English. Just think of how long it took you to figure out what Ramana actually meant by sahaja samadhi. So for those who already got their feet wet, it may be useful to adjust and align their vocabulary so that it's easier to talk about it. No problem. But for those who haven't gotten their feet wet yet, what's the point of adjusting and aligning their wet feet experience vocabulary and learning about all the different levels and layers of it? What would that be based on, what do they have to go with other than pure imagination? It can only end in confusion. So the problem I see is that some people here got mesmerized by the finger that is pointing to the Moon and forgot to look where that finger is actually pointing to in the process. Which again shows the importance of finding plain English terms for these states and experiences. In that sense, I fully support your effort. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 15, 2022 5:02:02 GMT -5
I often talk to ND groups about different forms of samadhi for various reasons. ... I don't have an issue with that. My issue is with what some people here are doing with it. People need to get their own feet wet. Nothing else will do. But what I see them doing instead is quoting guys like Ramana on how wet feet experiences are supposed to look like. And Ramana can't even speak plain English. Just think of how long it took you to figure out what Ramana actually meant by sahaja samadhi. So for those who already got their feet wet, it may be useful to adjust and align their vocabulary so that it's easier to talk about it. No problem. But for those who haven't gotten their feet wet yet, what's the point of adjusting and aligning their wet feet experience vocabulary and learning about all the different levels and layers of it? What would that be based on, what do they have to go with other than pure imagination? It can only end in confusion. So the problem I see is that some people here got mesmerized by the finger that is pointing to the Moon and forgot to look where that finger is actually pointing to in the process. Which again shows the importance of finding plain English terms for these states and experiences. In that sense, I fully support your effort. I think that a great teacher teaches you how to learn, and how to fulfill your potential. He doesn't teach you how things are, as much, but how to find out how things are, for yourself. A great teacher should be able to help his pupils to surpass their teacher's abilities and knowledge, if they have or when they'll have that potential. He should strive not to pass his own limitations and distortions to his pupils: he should have that humility. Regarding the language issues, as well as the difficulty of describing concepts that others aren't yet able to comprehend, I believe that the symbolic approach is the best, but there are few teachers able of doing that. There are examples of symbolic teachings in most dogmas, but unfortunately those are often interpreted ad literam. All the events we experience while awake and while asleep contain multi-layered symbolism that needs to be interpreted at the deepest level one can do it, using his intuition and inner-guidance. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 15, 2022 13:27:10 GMT -5
I don't have an issue with that. My issue is with what some people here are doing with it. People need to get their own feet wet. Nothing else will do. But what I see them doing instead is quoting guys like Ramana on how wet feet experiences are supposed to look like. And Ramana can't even speak plain English. Just think of how long it took you to figure out what Ramana actually meant by sahaja samadhi. So for those who already got their feet wet, it may be useful to adjust and align their vocabulary so that it's easier to talk about it. No problem. But for those who haven't gotten their feet wet yet, what's the point of adjusting and aligning their wet feet experience vocabulary and learning about all the different levels and layers of it? What would that be based on, what do they have to go with other than pure imagination? It can only end in confusion. So the problem I see is that some people here got mesmerized by the finger that is pointing to the Moon and forgot to look where that finger is actually pointing to in the process. Which again shows the importance of finding plain English terms for these states and experiences. In that sense, I fully support your effort. I think that a great teacher teaches you how to learn, and how to fulfill your potential. He doesn't teach you how things are, as much, but how to find out how things are, for yourself. A great teacher should be able to help his pupils to surpass their teacher's abilities and knowledge, if they have or when they'll have that potential. He should strive not to pass his own limitations and distortions to his pupils: he should have that humility. Regarding the language issues, as well as the difficulty of describing concepts that others aren't yet able to comprehend, I believe that the symbolic approach is the best, but there are few teachers able of doing that. There are examples of symbolic teachings in most dogmas, but unfortunately those are often interpreted ad literam. All the events we experience while awake and while asleep contain multi-layered symbolism that needs to be interpreted at the deepest level one can do it, using his intuition and inner-guidance. Yes, you have to realize it for yourself. There's no way around that. No one can help you there. You're on your own. There will come a point though on the pathless path when - as Niz put it - the Ultimate takes over, or - as they say - your head is in the tiger's mouth. |
|
