|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2022 14:50:56 GMT -5
Hopefully, these get to my question. I'm asking, when awareness is focused elsewhere, is inavalan ~present~? This is the very point I'm getting to, are you aware of the awareness when it is focused elsewhere (just saying it a little differently). If you-are-not that awareness, your post, the rest of it, is just an abstraction, just theory. If inavalan never goes unconscious, I'm pretty sure that's pretty rare. Sorry. I'd like to reply, but I can't understand exactly what you're asking. Please reformulate  What do you mean by "is inavalan ~present~?", or "are you aware of the awareness", or "you-are-not that awareness" ? If you call "inavalan" my ego, then it is tied to my being awake, which means my awareness is mostly focused into the physical. To me, "awake" isn't the same as "awareness". Also when we use "you" we have to differentiate between ego, dream-self, subconscious, inner-self, personality, whole-self, entity, ... "Unconscious" isn't the same thing with "subconscious", or "sleeping", or "dreaming". All represent different things. I am a non-physical identity that controls its focus of awareness as direction, width, concentration, in the wider-reality, which includes the physical-universe. When I am focused mostly in the physical, it is called "being awake". When I fall asleep, that focus moves from the physical into another domain of consciousness. Each state of consciousness has a system of beliefs. This can be observed for example as differences between one's environment and abilities when awake vs. when dreaming. The states of consciousness are on a continuum, they aren't completely distinct; there are an infinite number of shades between them. I, as an identity, never sleep: I am always aware and focused somewhere, feeling (at this level of evolvement on the consciousness scale) as a different self, having or not a vague recollection of other selves. Ego compared to personality is like me-when-I-am-at school, compared to me-in-all-situations. I go to school and I am a student for 6 hours. I go back home and I am a regular kid. I work on my homework and I am a kid-doing-his-homework. "Ego" is in fact a state of consciousness, not a separate identity: like me when I am in class at school. Think about yourself awake, yourself in your dream, yourself in a lucid-dream. When you are in any of those situations, you don't think that the others are different identities: you move from one into the other. Normally you are either / or, but with a little training you can straddle two or more states, while mainly focusing in one: e.g. conscious-sleep. You are always the same identity but function in different frameworks of beliefs. The whole separation and distinction is artificial, and it is a distortion induced by the societal narrative, by mistake, from ignorance and free-will gone wrong. It sprung from the formation of the "intellect", with no intuition to keep it in check. Looking around you can see intelligent people who go terrible wrong, form absurd convictions based on unchecked reasoning. That is almost always caused during the growing up phase, creating a false sense of intellectual superiority by a lower intellectual environment or through unwise rearing. It can be addressed by changing that belief. I wasn't quite sure how to reply to this. It seems inavalan is the most evolved and advanced person here on ST's. But this gets to the OP. But are you saying that for inavalan, consciousness is like a dimmer? "that controls its focus of awareness" seems to be the most pertinent statement (it seems that cannot be more clear). So inavalan, at the deepest aspect, ~functions~ through, controls the dimmer? Then why would you ever merely function through ego? I guess that's what I do not understand, why would you choose to be more-dim? (But, like my last reply, is all this experiential, or some theoretical)? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 14:59:10 GMT -5
I don't subscribe to your assumptions. Sleep isn't unconscious: your "awareness" is focused elsewhere than the physical; your physical-senses are dimmed down, and your inner-senses become primary. Consciousness "precedes" matter, creates matter; not the other way around. Consciousness is primary. You seem to call "awareness" the state of "being awake". "Awareness" is a feature of your non-physical identity, and it can be focused in other states than "awake". In that sense it is primordial. The "awake state" isn't primordial. Comparatively, the "dream state" as part of the "sleep state" (as called from the physical ego's perspective) are "more" primordial than the "awake state". Actually those states aren't really on / off, but they move between the foreground and the background of the "awareness" ' focus. "Awareness" isn't subject to the body's needs. It may respond to physical-stimuli, when it is mostly focused into other states than "awake", but the body is managed by the "subconscious" (which actually creates the physical-body, as everything else you perceive). The "body intelligence" is part of the "subconscious". "Awareness" never sleeps; it changes focus. This makes sense to me.Is it (all) experiential? I guess you're asking if I read it in a book, or I intellectually developed my model ... Neither! It is all from my experiences, and intuitive direct-knowledge acquired in altered states of consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 15:08:01 GMT -5
Knowing doesn't have any sub division. Even the early Greeks knew that there were two kinds of knowing. That's why they had two separate words for "knowing." Intellectual knowing involves a subject and object; direct knowing does not. This reminds of prof. Mattias Desmet's explanation that " knowing" has two stages. The first one is related to " perceiving", and he comments that in French there is " savoir", where "voir" means "to see". This is the rational knowing. Then there is the next level of " knowing" (to cognize) that in French is " connaître", where "naître" means "to give birth". This is the intuitional knowing. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 15:15:28 GMT -5
Knowing doesn't have any sub division. Even the early Greeks knew that there were two kinds of knowing. That's why they had two separate words for "knowing." Intellectual knowing involves a subject and object; direct knowing does not. Also, in an altered state of consciousness, I experience direct-knowledge as "knowing it at once, instantly". I formulate a question, and usually even before I finish formulating it, I instantly have all the answer in my mind. Then, because I usually think in words, I formulate it. When my formulation is imprecise or incorrect, I get another instant download of direct-knowledge, like a clarification, an emphasis on what I misinterpreted. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 15:34:44 GMT -5
If there is truly such a state, then you can only know when you are entering into that state and coming out of that state. You can't know when you are in it. , you're not sure such a state exists. That's totally fair, and honest. But from there you have two options. 1. forget it. or 2. enter the state yourself. This third option of trying to prove that no one else can go into the state, using word definitions and logic – it's just pointless. I think for some people it is not easy to enter this state. There is a 'barrier' of some kind, like a fear of death. It can really rig the mind to avoid the state, so it can be tricky. People think, well I meditated a bunch and it didn't happen, so it's not possible. Edit: I'm skeptical of people who say they entered it easily. There are probably levels to the 'experience', with some going deeper than others. There is also the possibility that that state is misinterpreted by some people, under the influence of what they read or heard from others, or in another way. This would mean that some of those " not sure such a state exists" can't ever form the same belief about that state. It can't be said that those who experienced SR are different than those that experienced any other religious enlightenment, including atheists. All are as sure of their Truth. For example, I believe that SR is misinterpreted as the absolute state of consciousness, by people who didn't step further. But, I recognize it as a belief. As you recently mentioned, I think that everybody can and should know only from their inner source of knowledge and guidance. Most people don't do that. You can still read a lot, listen to others, but have to leave all that, and your beliefs and expectations aside during your inner q&a sesions. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 15:38:03 GMT -5
I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but if I play along, then I'd say #1: perception is happening in me. Before you started started the infinite loop with Zendancer, you took issue with the Ramana quote I posted. Is it your position that Ramana too was wrong or delusional about Self and Awareness? Good question. Niz, Ramana, Ramakrishna, Sekida, and countless other sages and Zen Masters who have talked and written about NS must be imagining things because their claims totally refute G's idea.  There are as many masters, saints, gurus, ... who promote different and opposing ideas. Truth isn't decided by vote ... |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 15:49:44 GMT -5
It's not the "real" you going into or coming out of NS. It's the "dream/false" you submerged in the Real. Now the terms I have in quotes are concessions to the intellect, not the truth but useful in this context. There is only Self. Self vs self is a pointer. The you that comes out of NS only exists conceptually, a product of the I-thought. The Real you is timeless and imperceptible. It cannot be known in the usual way we know objects. Some say it is the Knowing. But it defies description. This speaks best to the OP, of all the posts. There are no real / false yous. There is the same you operating in various states of consciousness, governed various systems of beliefs and assumptions. All yous are "real" in the sense that they exist. The physical-reality isn't more "real" than the dream-reality. It is actually a more distorted version of the wider-reality, but this doesn't make it false. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 15:57:14 GMT -5
Sorry. I'd like to reply, but I can't understand exactly what you're asking. Please reformulate What do you mean by "is inavalan ~present~?", or "are you aware of the awareness", or "you-are-not that awareness" ? If you call "inavalan" my ego, then it is tied to my being awake, which means my awareness is mostly focused into the physical. To me, "awake" isn't the same as "awareness". Also when we use "you" we have to differentiate between ego, dream-self, subconscious, inner-self, personality, whole-self, entity, ... "Unconscious" isn't the same thing with "subconscious", or "sleeping", or "dreaming". All represent different things. I am a non-physical identity that controls its focus of awareness as direction, width, concentration, in the wider-reality, which includes the physical-universe. When I am focused mostly in the physical, it is called "being awake". When I fall asleep, that focus moves from the physical into another domain of consciousness. Each state of consciousness has a system of beliefs. This can be observed for example as differences between one's environment and abilities when awake vs. when dreaming. The states of consciousness are on a continuum, they aren't completely distinct; there are an infinite number of shades between them. I, as an identity, never sleep: I am always aware and focused somewhere, feeling (at this level of evolvement on the consciousness scale) as a different self, having or not a vague recollection of other selves. Ego compared to personality is like me-when-I-am-at school, compared to me-in-all-situations. I go to school and I am a student for 6 hours. I go back home and I am a regular kid. I work on my homework and I am a kid-doing-his-homework. "Ego" is in fact a state of consciousness, not a separate identity: like me when I am in class at school. Think about yourself awake, yourself in your dream, yourself in a lucid-dream. When you are in any of those situations, you don't think that the others are different identities: you move from one into the other. Normally you are either / or, but with a little training you can straddle two or more states, while mainly focusing in one: e.g. conscious-sleep. You are always the same identity but function in different frameworks of beliefs. The whole separation and distinction is artificial, and it is a distortion induced by the societal narrative, by mistake, from ignorance and free-will gone wrong. It sprung from the formation of the "intellect", with no intuition to keep it in check. Looking around you can see intelligent people who go terrible wrong, form absurd convictions based on unchecked reasoning. That is almost always caused during the growing up phase, creating a false sense of intellectual superiority by a lower intellectual environment or through unwise rearing. It can be addressed by changing that belief. I wasn't quite sure how to reply to this. It seems inavalan is the most evolved and advanced person here on ST's. But this gets to the OP. But are you saying that for inavalan, consciousness is like a dimmer? "that controls its focus of awareness" seems to be the most pertinent statement (it seems that cannot be more clear). So inavalan, at the deepest aspect, ~functions~ through, controls the dimmer? Then why would you ever merely function through ego? I guess that's what I do not understand, why would you choose to be more-dim? (But, like my last reply, is all this experiential, or some theoretical)? It seems that you meant to offend me, as you know that I never said something to support that opinion. Actually I repeatedly said that I only state my opinions, which reflect my beliefs, and which I don't intend to impose on others, and I don't intend to argue their merits. I think that I already explained clearly enough what you're asking in the rest of your post. You can't understand it because you start from some assumptions that I think to be incorrect, like the existence of an objective physical-reality. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2022 16:39:12 GMT -5
Even the early Greeks knew that there were two kinds of knowing. That's why they had two separate words for "knowing." Intellectual knowing involves a subject and object; direct knowing does not. This reminds of prof. Mattias Desmet's explanation that " knowing" has two stages. The first one is related to " perceiving", and he comments that in French there is " savoir", where "voir" means "to see". This is the rational knowing. Then there is the next level of " knowing" (to cognize) that in French is " connaître", where "naître" means "to give birth". This is the intuitional knowing. Not what ZD means. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 22, 2022 16:39:29 GMT -5
Good question. Niz, Ramana, Ramakrishna, Sekida, and countless other sages and Zen Masters who have talked and written about NS must be imagining things because their claims totally refute G's idea. There are as many masters, saints, gurus, ... who promote different and opposing ideas. Truth isn't decided by vote ... Agreed, but if one has no reference for NS, what would be the basis for making any claims about it? As far as I know there is 100% agreement among those who are familiar with NS. Can you name one sage/master/saint/guru who disagrees with anything Ramana, Nisargadatta, Sekida, and those of us who are familiar with NS have stated about that state? If you are familiar with NS, how would you describe it? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 22, 2022 16:39:53 GMT -5
This reminds of prof. Mattias Desmet's explanation that " knowing" has two stages. The first one is related to " perceiving", and he comments that in French there is " savoir", where "voir" means "to see". This is the rational knowing. Then there is the next level of " knowing" (to cognize) that in French is " connaître", where "naître" means "to give birth". This is the intuitional knowing. Not what ZD means. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2022 16:43:07 GMT -5
So, you're not sure such a state exists. That's totally fair, and honest. But from there you have two options. 1. forget it. or 2. enter the state yourself. This third option of trying to prove that no one else can go into the state, using word definitions and logic – it's just pointless. I think for some people it is not easy to enter this state. There is a 'barrier' of some kind, like a fear of death. It can really rig the mind to avoid the state, so it can be tricky. People think, well I meditated a bunch and it didn't happen, so it's not possible. Edit: I'm skeptical of people who say they entered it easily. There are probably levels to the 'experience', with some going deeper than others. There is also the possibility that that state is misinterpreted by some people, under the influence of what they read or heard from others, or in another way. This would mean that some of those " not sure such a state exists" can't ever form the same belief about that state. It can't be said that those who experienced SR are different than those that experienced any other religious enlightenment, including atheists. All are as sure of their Truth. For example, I believe that SR is misinterpreted as the absolute state of consciousness, by people who didn't step further. But, I recognize it as a belief. As you recently mentioned, I think that everybody can and should know only from their inner source of knowledge and guidance. Most people don't do that. You can still read a lot, listen to others, but have to leave all that, and your beliefs and expectations aside during your inner q&a sesions. I've been trying to point this out for 10 years here, good luck, a recent thread even. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2022 16:59:58 GMT -5
I wasn't quite sure how to reply to this. It seems inavalan is the most evolved and advanced person here on ST's. But this gets to the OP. But are you saying that for inavalan, consciousness is like a dimmer? "that controls its focus of awareness" seems to be the most pertinent statement (it seems that cannot be more clear). So inavalan, at the deepest aspect, ~functions~ through, controls the dimmer? Then why would you ever merely function through ego? I guess that's what I do not understand, why would you choose to be more-dim? (But, like my last reply, is all this experiential, or some theoretical)? It seems that you meant to offend me, as you know that I never said something to support that opinion. Actually I repeatedly said that I only state my opinions, which reflect my beliefs, and which I don't intend to impose on others, and I don't intend to argue their merits. I think that I already explained clearly enough what you're asking in the rest of your post. You can't understand it because you start from some assumptions that I think to be incorrect, like the existence of an objective physical-reality.I absolutely meant no offense. I'm going by what you have said, this is why I pushed you, to clarify. You clarified. As far as I know, nobody else here has said anything about or claimed such capabilities. This is one reason for the OP. You see, those claiming SR say that's the end of the journey. I find that suspect. Imagination is diabolical. We find this taught throughout Hinduism, Advaita and even Buddhism. We just don't know how powerful imagination is. I try to bend over backwards with honesty, anything else is just time wasted. If I were to use sarcasm, it would be clear. Edit: OK, tenka seems to indicate such possibilities, he seems to indicate he recalls past lives. If that is incorrect, when he shows up again I'll bump this. There was another guy here some years ago, don't recall his name, but he also seemed to indicate awareness of other ~realms~ than the physical. So people are right, this is a nonduality forum. Meaning, people with other orientations sometimes visit here, but usually leave. I think Richard Rose had a broader view, maybe even a kind of ~fishing~ view, that is, everybody invited. The introduction to the forum seems to indicate this, broad and varied views welcome, let's have a discussion. A little further. SR is the end because it supersedes everything else, SR is the umbrella that covers everything. So all planes, all paths, are equally superfluous in the eyes of nonduality. I obviously disagree, so I live in the doghouse, here. And even a little further. So, even if true, all your claims are superfluous, in the eyes of nonduality. Everything is superfluous in light of SR. So, join me in the doghouse. I will add a response to this. For the manifest universe, I accept the current view of physics. There are no things. Most physicists accept Quantum Field Theory to be the base of what is. That is, everything, "material" exists as overlapping quantum fields (wavy no-things). Now, saying that, QFT covers only 4.8% of the universe that must necessarily exist. The other 95.2% physicists know (there is a something) because of the unusual rotation of all galaxies (we can't find the source of gravity, responsible). This missing part is called dark matter, it's about 27%. And we know about dark energy, about 68% of the missing universe, missing in the sense of we don't know what it is, because of the increasing acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Now, I take the source, the missing 95.2%, to be the higher dimensions, energy of higher rates of vibration so as to be imperceptible. Gurdjieff said everything is material, that even God is material. By material, I would include energy (as Einstein showed matter and energy are interchangeable). This fits very nicely with the Kabbalistic Tree of Life and the Ten Sefirot. The energy of "God" as Ein Sof, is ~lowered~ as a kind of step-down transformer, as #1. #1 is stepped down, to world #2. In turn #2 stepped down to #3, the process continues all the way down to the tenth Sefirot, our manifest universe. So our manifest universe is the 4.8%, the other nine worlds are the source of the other 95.2% of the "missing" universe. This is one model of the ancient Great Chain of Being. Gurdjieff also had a model, he called Ein Sof, the Absolute. In In Search of the Miraculous is a table of numbers showing everything in existence, from the highest energy, the lowest density of "matter" and the highest density of vibrations, #1 (Originating Whole); to, in our world, the greatest density of matter and the lowest density of vibrations #12288. In Gurdjieff's model, there are 7 worlds, an octave. Within each world, are seven sub-planes, AKA inner octaves, the Absolute is World 1. Our manifest universe consists of World 48 and World 96 (I won't go into the why of those numbers). But, basically, that's my view of the (totality of) the universe, inavalan. You brought it up. The energy represented from 1 to 12288 are *built up* from a series of triads. For example, World 3 consists of three forces, #1, #2, #3. Add these up and the second energy-number is 6. So, again, each of the following energy-numbers from 6 to 12288, are built up likewise by a series of triads. (The 3 basic forces actually correspond to the 3 gunas, of the Bhagavad Gita). [BTW, ZD is not a fan of numbers]. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 22, 2022 18:27:36 GMT -5
It seems that you meant to offend me, as you know that I never said something to support that opinion. Actually I repeatedly said that I only state my opinions, which reflect my beliefs, and which I don't intend to impose on others, and I don't intend to argue their merits. I think that I already explained clearly enough what you're asking in the rest of your post. You can't understand it because you start from some assumptions that I think to be incorrect, like the existence of an objective physical-reality. I absolutely meant no offense. I'm going by what you have said, this is why I pushed you, to clarify. You clarified. As far as I know, nobody else here has said anything about or claimed such capabilities. This is one reason for the OP. You see, those claiming SR say that's the end of the journey. I find that suspect. Imagination is diabolical. We find this taught throughout Hinduism, Advaita and even Buddhism. We just don't know how powerful imagination is. I try to bend over backwards with honesty, anything else is just time wasted. If I were to use sarcasm, it would be clear. Edit: OK, tenka seems to indicate such possibilities, he seems to indicate he recalls past lives. If that is incorrect, when he shows up again I'll bump this. There was another guy here some years ago, don't recall his name, but he also seemed to indicate awareness of other ~realms~ than the physical. So people are right, this is a nonduality forum. Meaning, people with other orientations sometimes visit here, but usually leave. I think Richard Rose had a broader view, maybe even a kind of ~fishing~ view, that is, everybody invited. The introduction to the forum seems to indicate this, broad and varied views welcome, let's have a discussion. A little further. SR is the end because it supersedes everything else, SR is the umbrella that covers everything. So all planes, all paths, are equally superfluous in the eyes of nonduality. I obviously disagree, so I live in the doghouse, here. And even a little further. So, even if true, all your claims are superfluous, in the eyes of nonduality. Everything is superfluous in light of SR. So, join me in the doghouse. I suspect that people use the term "SR" in two different ways. One meaning would be seeing through the illusion of being a SVP and the other meaning could be labeled as "TR" for "THIS realization"--the realization that THIS, alone, is all, and that everything and everyone is one-with THIS. Apparently there are people (Ruthless Truth people come to mind) who see through the illusion of selfhood, but never apprehend the Infinite. Ramana, of course, was clearly referring to the second meaning when he talked about discovering the "Self." I don't like the word "enlightenment" because of its baggage, but IMO it points to people who have had at least five major events occur including (1) seeing through the illusion of separate things and realizing that all boundaries are imaginary, (2) seeing through the illusion of the SVP, (3) directly apprehending the Infinite, (4) realizing that awareness is primordial, and (5) understanding the limits of the intellect and attaining non-abidance in mind (mind becomes a servant rather than a master). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 22, 2022 19:09:28 GMT -5
There are as many masters, saints, gurus, ... who promote different and opposing ideas. Truth isn't decided by vote ... Agreed, but if one has no reference for NS, what would be the basis for making any claims about it? As far as I know there is 100% agreement among those who are familiar with NS. Can you name one sage/master/saint/guru who disagrees with anything Ramana, Nisargadatta, Sekida, and those of us who are familiar with NS have stated about that state? If you are familiar with NS, how would you describe it? Just curious. It isn't a domain I am interested in because, as I mentioned with all due respect, I believe to be a distortion, as other systems of beliefs are. I assume that NS means "nirvikalpa samadhi" that you discussed on your "deep flow" thread. At the time I looked it up a little, but I didn't find it of interest to me. I am not familiar with the work of any gurus. Occasionally I read a quote from the most important ones, and I try to interpret it intuitively, and I find a different meaning behind some of those words, that is in line with my beliefs. Some times I post it, other times I don't. When Reefs asked, I described a state of "expanded awareness" that I experienced, but I didn't find it to be the ultimate state, of which I actually think there is none: the depth is infinite, way beyond any humans' possibilities. I am not looking for such a state. |
|
