|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2022 18:18:55 GMT -5
For what it might be worth to ya', it's quite clear to me that RM wasn't describing some sort of expanded sense of personalized identity.  I don't think Whitman was either. He wrote in that language some, but I don't take it literally. In my opinion parts Song of Myself evoke the feeling of cosmic consciousness. Do I want to debate this? Hell no. no debate on that point is offered, I agree with you about Walt. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 21, 2022 19:56:18 GMT -5
"The state of NS is known during NS" so....
If it were not known (it seems to me), it would not be different from sleep. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 20:06:03 GMT -5
From Richard Rose's poem The Mirror...
....
Until we realize that we do not realize . . . .
Except that the Absolute has a mirror
Which it turns upon itself,
Saying
I have had enough of my adventure,
Into endless possibilities of my self . . . .
Sounds like going into pure Awareness isn't up to little me-self.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 21, 2022 20:13:38 GMT -5
Awareness, in the way Ramana used the term in these 3 sentences, is aware, but this is a pointer: That's really all that thinking-mind can ever make of this meaning. "Awareness is aware". Then, in the next breath, RM flips existential context, telling the person who he just told "you are awareness", what they should do to try to realize what he was pointing to: This "being aware" that RM is referring to is the personalized, focused "awareness", it's not the same meaning as "You are awareness". "you are being aware" is the personal existential context. "you are awareness" is the impersonal, non-dual existential "context" that can only be pointed to. Finally, RM tries to sort out the mix that he just did, differentiating the pointing-use of "aware" with the term "pure awareness": personal existential context impersonal existential (pointing) "context" My point is, you are awareness. Awareness is the process of becoming aware of something. It can't be separated from what's perceived. Perceiver and perceived are one. Perceiver is the attached part of ongoing perception. Good night, see you tomorrow! , is not necessarily true, you could drop all definitions, everything you know, and step into the unknown. Gopal doesn't have to live from what-you-know, that's the way of stagnation, slamming the door shut. Gopal, draw a large circle, that's the Whole, that's Awareness. Now draw a small circle inside the larger circle, that's Gopal. Every context you-(Gopal) have is for the small circle, ~*you*~(Gopal) are contained in the small circle. What people are telling you (it seems to me) is that in NS the boundary of the small circle is temporarily ~dissolved~, there is no ego-sensing and no sensations, period. Awareness remains (it seems to me,) the ~context~ of awareness is the larger circle. You could look at the larger circle as the unmanifest, no-thing. So there is no-thing for awareness to-be-aware- of. Yet awareness remains. This awareness, is Awareness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 21:32:28 GMT -5
"The state of NS is known during NS" so....
If it were not known (it seems to me), it would not be different from sleep. If he can know during NS, then there is a content. Knwoing is happening. Thats all. He made a clear statement that he can know during NS.That speaks enough. He has mistakes that awareness is aware of itself. That is also content. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 21:33:53 GMT -5
My point is, you are awareness. Awareness is the process of becoming aware of something. It can't be separated from what's perceived. Perceiver and perceived are one. Perceiver is the attached part of ongoing perception. Good night, see you tomorrow! , is not necessarily true, you could drop all definitions, everything you know, and step into the unknown. Gopal doesn't have to live from what-you-know, that's the way of stagnation, slamming the door shut. Gopal, draw a large circle, that's the Whole, that's Awareness. Now draw a small circle inside the larger circle, that's Gopal. Every context you-(Gopal) have is for the small circle, ~*you*~(Gopal) are contained in the small circle. What people are telling you (it seems to me) is that in NS the boundary of the small circle is temporarily ~dissolved~, there is no ego-sensing and no sensations, period. Awareness remains (it seems to me,) the ~context~ of awareness is the larger circle. You could look at the larger circle as the unmanifest, no-thing. So there is no-thing for awareness to-be-aware- of. Yet awareness remains. This awareness, is Awareness. They are making awareness as an entity, but it is not. Awareness is not a fixed entity, that KNOWING process itself is awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 21, 2022 22:59:20 GMT -5
This, is not necessarily true, you could drop all definitions, everything you know, and step into the unknown. Gopal doesn't have to live from what-you-know, that's the way of stagnation, slamming the door shut. Gopal, draw a large circle, that's the Whole, that's Awareness. Now draw a small circle inside the larger circle, that's Gopal. Every context you-(Gopal) have is for the small circle, ~*you*~(Gopal) are contained in the small circle. What people are telling you (it seems to me) is that in NS the boundary of the small circle is temporarily ~dissolved~, there is no ego-sensing and no sensations, period. Awareness remains (it seems to me,) the ~context~ of awareness is the larger circle. You could look at the larger circle as the unmanifest, no-thing. So there is no-thing for awareness to-be-aware- of. Yet awareness remains. This awareness, is Awareness. They are making awareness as an entity, but it is not. Awareness is not a fixed entity, that KNOWING process itself is awareness. No, knowing means subject and object, it means time has to enter. Knowing means memory is involved, if even just a split second. In awareness, no time is involved, no subject and object, there is simultaneity. This means nondual. They are not making awareness an entity. There might be some memory, but awareness knows the difference between NOW, and memory. Once you *~*enter-into-now*~*, you want only to live there (here). And eventually you don't really want anything else. In January 1974 I was introduced to the Ram Dass book Be Here Now, the blue paperback book with brown pages which has never been altered. Richard Alpert (to be Ram Dass) was traveling with Bhagavan Das, going to meet Neem Karola Baba. He had lots of questions. Bhagavan Das just kept answering him: Be, Here, Now. It took me a couple of years to get a handle on that, but with some help I eventually did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 23:17:51 GMT -5
They are making awareness as an entity, but it is not. Awareness is not a fixed entity, that KNOWING process itself is awareness. No, knowing means subject and object, it means time has to enter. Knowing means memory is involved, if even just a split second. In awareness, no time is involved, no subject and object, there is simultaneity. This means nondual. They are not making awareness an entity. There might be some memory, but awareness knows the difference between NOW, and memory. Once you *~*enter-into-now*~*, you want only to live there (here). And eventually you don't really want anything else. In January 1974 I was introduced to the Ram Dass book Be Here Now, the blue paperback book with brown pages which has never been altered. Richard Alpert (to be Ram Dass) was traveling with Bhagavan Das, going to meet Neem Karola Baba. He had lots of questions. Bhagavan Das just kept answering him: Be, Here, Now. It took me a couple of years to get a handle on that, but with some help I eventually did. You missed the point. The argument is about whether there is a perceiver which is knowing something or that knowing itself is the perceiver. I am saying that the later is the case. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 21, 2022 23:23:39 GMT -5
No, knowing means subject and object, it means time has to enter. Knowing means memory is involved, if even just a split second. In awareness, no time is involved, no subject and object, there is simultaneity. This means nondual. They are not making awareness an entity. There might be some memory, but awareness knows the difference between NOW, and memory. Once you *~*enter-into-now*~*, you want only to live there (here). And eventually you don't really want anything else. In January 1974 I was introduced to the Ram Dass book Be Here Now, the blue paperback book with brown pages which has never been altered. Richard Alpert (to be Ram Dass) was traveling with Bhagavan Das, going to meet Neem Karola Baba. He had lots of questions. Bhagavan Das just kept answering him: Be, Here, Now. It took me a couple of years to get a handle on that, but with some help I eventually did. You missed the point. The argument is about whether there is a perceiver which is knowing something or that knowing itself is the perceiver. I am saying that the later is the case. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King". No offense intended, I just don't know what else to say. What you are saying and what they are saying, don't overlap. (Goodnight). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 23:24:11 GMT -5
You missed the point. The argument is about whether there is a perceiver which is knowing something or that knowing itself is the perceiver. I am saying that the later is the case. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King". No offense intended, I just don't know what else to say. What you are saying and what they are saying, don't overlap. Okay, fine! No problem. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 22, 2022 8:19:24 GMT -5
If it were not known (it seems to me), it would not be different from sleep. If he can know during NS, then there is a content. Knwoing is happening. Thats all. He made a clear statement that he can know during NS.That speaks enough. He has mistakes that awareness is aware of itself. That is also content. No reference and no understanding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 8:23:56 GMT -5
If he can know during NS, then there is a content. Knwoing is happening. Thats all. He made a clear statement that he can know during NS.That speaks enough. He has mistakes that awareness is aware of itself. That is also content. No reference and no understanding. "The state of NS is known during NS"  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 22, 2022 8:24:28 GMT -5
They are making awareness as an entity, but it is not. Awareness is not a fixed entity, that KNOWING process itself is awareness. No, knowing means subject and object, it means time has to enter. Knowing means memory is involved, if even just a split second. In awareness, no time is involved, no subject and object, there is simultaneity. This means nondual. They are not making awareness an entity. There might be some memory, but awareness knows the difference between NOW, and memory. Once you *~*enter-into-now*~*, you want only to live there (here). And eventually you don't really want anything else. In January 1974 I was introduced to the Ram Dass book Be Here Now, the blue paperback book with brown pages which has never been altered. Richard Alpert (to be Ram Dass) was traveling with Bhagavan Das, going to meet Neem Karola Baba. He had lots of questions. Bhagavan Das just kept answering him: Be, Here, Now. It took me a couple of years to get a handle on that, but with some help I eventually did. Yes, "knowing" with subject/object is episteme. The "knowing" in NS is direct (gnosis) because there's no time, space, or separateness of any kind. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 22, 2022 8:26:04 GMT -5
No reference and no understanding. "The state of NS is known during NS" Known directly. Big difference. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 8:37:18 GMT -5
"The state of NS is known during NS" Known directly. Big difference. Knowing doesn't have any sub division. |
|
