Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2023 7:01:54 GMT -5
Since full Awakening which is Self-realization is nirvikalpa samadhi become sahaja samadhi, it's unavoidable to experience nirvikalpa even if it's only experienced once without any prior practice as was the case with Ramana Maharshi. In his case he experienced nirvikalpa which instantaneously became sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi or SR. It is impossible for me to know if the people you have mentioned are Self-realized so I can't make any comparisons. Paul Morgan-Somers talks a lot about the ocean. That is nirvikalpa. It doesn't mean there isn't NS just because the word isn't used or if there is a different way of describing it If you put it that way, it sounds a bit like Spira declaring enlightenment as just another word for happiness. We have to be very precise with our language here. Samadhi is a state, an experience. SR is not a state, not an experience. So by definition, NS cannot be SR. As ZD already mentioned, NS is not a requirement for SR and NS does not automagically result in SR. As a case in point, there are several members here who have indicated that they have a reference for NS but at the same time show no reference whatsoever for SR. SR should not be confused with the various states that may or may not accompany SR. In that sense, SR is always the same realization, but there's great variety in terms of how this can play out, individually, as an experience. And it could indeed happen the way you described it, but it doesn't have to and more often than not doesn't, because the basic formula for liberation is much simpler and much more basic than the formula you have given. So, you're not wrong. But you make it seem more complicated than it actually is. However, I think in terms of final result, we've always been in agreement. That's correct, NS is not SR, but sahaja samadhi which is SR and is permanent is born of NS. To show the connection sages such as Ramana and Shankara refer to it as sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. SR is experienced/known otherwise no one in the history of the planet would have ever mentioned it. You can't speak about something you have no knowledge of. So you can call it experience or total knowledge if you like or even enlightenment. Of course there is always the possibility that someone who claims to be SR and denies the necessity of NS isn't actually SR. I'm not a big fan of Rupert but when he says that enlightenment is happiness he is probably referring to what Vedanta says which is that the realized state or true nature is Sat Chit Ananda (existence consciousness bliss). Ananda is bliss, peace, happiness, self-fulfillment, contentment, wanting for nothing, self-satisfaction, peace that passes understanding etc. All of this is experienced by the body mind. You can't take the human being and the ego out of the equation as long as you are living in the body. The neo advaitans try to do this but it doesn't work. It's just mental gymnastics. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 23, 2023 8:30:50 GMT -5
If you put it that way, it sounds a bit like Spira declaring enlightenment as just another word for happiness. We have to be very precise with our language here. Samadhi is a state, an experience. SR is not a state, not an experience. So by definition, NS cannot be SR. As ZD already mentioned, NS is not a requirement for SR and NS does not automagically result in SR. As a case in point, there are several members here who have indicated that they have a reference for NS but at the same time show no reference whatsoever for SR. SR should not be confused with the various states that may or may not accompany SR. In that sense, SR is always the same realization, but there's great variety in terms of how this can play out, individually, as an experience. And it could indeed happen the way you described it, but it doesn't have to and more often than not doesn't, because the basic formula for liberation is much simpler and much more basic than the formula you have given. So, you're not wrong. But you make it seem more complicated than it actually is. However, I think in terms of final result, we've always been in agreement. That's correct, NS is not SR, but sahaja samadhi which is SR and is permanent is born of NS. To show the connection sages such as Ramana and Shankara refer to it as sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. SR is experienced/known otherwise no one in the history of the planet would have ever mentioned it. You can't speak about something you have no knowledge of. So you can call it experience or total knowledge if you like or even enlightenment. Of course there is always the possibility that someone who claims to be SR and denies the necessity of NS isn't actually SR. I'm not a big fan of Rupert but when he says that enlightenment is happiness he is probably referring to what Vedanta says which is that the realized state or true nature is Sat Chit Ananda (existence consciousness bliss). Ananda is bliss, peace, happiness, self-fulfillment, contentment, wanting for nothing, self-satisfaction, peace that passes understanding etc. All of this is experienced by the body mind. You can't take the human being and the ego out of the equation as long as you are living in the body. The neo advaitans try to do this but it doesn't work. It's just mental gymnastics. Zen has a koan about this issue, and it goes like this: "A monk sat in nirvikalpa samadhi for countless kalpas, but never woke up. Why?" This koan points to the fact that some meditators who regularly experience NS may do so for 20, 30, or 40 years and never attain satori (SR). It questions why that is. We could formulate a corollary koan that could be stated like this: "A person with no interest in meditation, practices of any kind, or existential questions, and who never experienced NS suddenly woke up one day when he smelled some peach blossoms. Why?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2023 9:01:06 GMT -5
That's correct, NS is not SR, but sahaja samadhi which is SR and is permanent is born of NS. To show the connection sages such as Ramana and Shankara refer to it as sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. SR is experienced/known otherwise no one in the history of the planet would have ever mentioned it. You can't speak about something you have no knowledge of. So you can call it experience or total knowledge if you like or even enlightenment. Of course there is always the possibility that someone who claims to be SR and denies the necessity of NS isn't actually SR. I'm not a big fan of Rupert but when he says that enlightenment is happiness he is probably referring to what Vedanta says which is that the realized state or true nature is Sat Chit Ananda (existence consciousness bliss). Ananda is bliss, peace, happiness, self-fulfillment, contentment, wanting for nothing, self-satisfaction, peace that passes understanding etc. All of this is experienced by the body mind. You can't take the human being and the ego out of the equation as long as you are living in the body. The neo advaitans try to do this but it doesn't work. It's just mental gymnastics. Zen has a koan about this issue, and it goes like this: "A monk sat in nirvikalpa samadhi for countless kalpas, but never woke up. Why?" This koan points to the fact that some meditators who regularly experience NS may do so for 20, 30, or 40 years and never attain satori (SR). It questions why that is. We could formulate a corollary koan that could be stated like this: "A person with no interest in meditation, practices of any kind, or existential questions, and who never experienced NS suddenly woke up one day when he smelled some peach blossoms. Why? There's no answer to those questions. It's not possible to ascertain why someone wakes up without any practice and someone else practices all their life without waking up. Many questions just don't have answers. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 23, 2023 10:08:00 GMT -5
Zen has a koan about this issue, and it goes like this: "A monk sat in nirvikalpa samadhi for countless kalpas, but never woke up. Why?" This koan points to the fact that some meditators who regularly experience NS may do so for 20, 30, or 40 years and never attain satori (SR). It questions why that is. We could formulate a corollary koan that could be stated like this: "A person with no interest in meditation, practices of any kind, or existential questions, and who never experienced NS suddenly woke up one day when he smelled some peach blossoms. Why? There's no answer to those questions. It's not possible to ascertain why someone wakes up without any practice and someone else practices all their life without waking up. Many questions just don't have answers. Both of these questions have simple obvious answers if one can stop thinking, contemplate the underlying issue, and let the body respond. All koans have answers even it doesn't seem so at first glance. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 23, 2023 10:13:08 GMT -5
Since full Awakening which is Self-realization is nirvikalpa samadhi become sahaja samadhi, it's unavoidable to experience nirvikalpa even if it's only experienced once without any prior practice as was the case with Ramana Maharshi. Oh look, something on which we agree. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 23, 2023 10:24:44 GMT -5
Zen has a koan about this issue, and it goes like this: "A monk sat in nirvikalpa samadhi for countless kalpas, but never woke up. Why?" This koan points to the fact that some meditators who regularly experience NS may do so for 20, 30, or 40 years and never attain satori (SR). It questions why that is. Yes indeed. Because NS is necessary but insufficient. It takes a further act of discernment. NS even if it only for the tiniest of split seconds, is like showing you the pure untainted mirror reflection of your face. It takes a further act to wonder: whose reflection is this? The traditional answer to this is because the spiritual rigors have been done in prior lifetimes. But nevertheless, at the very moment of waking up, there is a split-second moment of NS. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2023 10:25:17 GMT -5
There's no answer to those questions. It's not possible to ascertain why someone wakes up without any practice and someone else practices all their life without waking up. Many questions just don't have answers. Both of these questions have simple obvious answers if one can stop thinking, contemplate the underlying issue, and let the body respond. All koans have answers even it doesn't seem so at first glance. To me they are not koans. They are just questions. I reiterate there is no answer. Of course that doesn't stop anyone from manufacturing an answer if imagination so dictates. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2023 10:29:33 GMT -5
Zen has a koan about this issue, and it goes like this: "A monk sat in nirvikalpa samadhi for countless kalpas, but never woke up. Why?" This koan points to the fact that some meditators who regularly experience NS may do so for 20, 30, or 40 years and never attain satori (SR). It questions why that is. Yes indeed. Because NS is necessary but insufficient. It takes a further act of discernment. NS even if it only for the tiniest of split seconds, is like showing you the pure untainted mirror reflection of your face. It takes a further act to wonder: whose reflection is this? The traditional answer to this is because the spiritual rigors have been done in prior lifetimes. But nevertheless, at the very moment of waking up, there is a split-second moment of NS. Exactly there must be manonasa (annihilation of mind) otherwise there cannot be SR. Everything else is just a mental construct or belief system. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 23, 2023 11:22:52 GMT -5
Yes indeed. Because NS is necessary but insufficient. It takes a further act of discernment. NS even if it only for the tiniest of split seconds, is like showing you the pure untainted mirror reflection of your face. It takes a further act to wonder: whose reflection is this? The traditional answer to this is because the spiritual rigors have been done in prior lifetimes. But nevertheless, at the very moment of waking up, there is a split-second moment of NS. Exactly there must be manonasa (annihilation of mind) otherwise there cannot be SR. Everything else is just a mental construct or belief system. 'Annhilation of mind' is a very Hollywood male expression. Very Mission Impossible. Forthe gender neutral self identified non-binary seekers, do you have another way of expressing it? 😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2023 11:27:01 GMT -5
Exactly there must be manonasa (annihilation of mind) otherwise there cannot be SR. Everything else is just a mental construct or belief system. 'Annhilation of mind' is a very Hollywood male expression. Very Mission Impossible. Forthe gender neutral self identified non-binary seekers, do you have another way of expressing it? 😂 In that case Ramana Maharshi as well as others such as Yoga Sivananda must have been in Holywood when they said it. I have no other way of expressing it because that's what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 23, 2023 11:44:35 GMT -5
Yes indeed. Because NS is necessary but insufficient. It takes a further act of discernment. NS even if it only for the tiniest of split seconds, is like showing you the pure untainted mirror reflection of your face. It takes a further act to wonder: whose reflection is this? The traditional answer to this is because the spiritual rigors have been done in prior lifetimes. But nevertheless, at the very moment of waking up, there is a split-second moment of NS. Exactly there must be manonasa (annihilation of mind) otherwise there cannot be SR. Everything else is just a mental construct or belief system. Now you guys are just making stuff up! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 23, 2023 11:50:16 GMT -5
Exactly there must be manonasa (annihilation of mind) otherwise there cannot be SR. Everything else is just a mental construct or belief system. 'Annhilation of mind' is a very Hollywood male expression. Very Mission Impossible. Forthe gender neutral self identified non-binary seekers, do you have another way of expressing it? 😂 The mind will not be destroyed or annihilated. I remember Satch admitting as much the last time this came up. What he likely means is the mind being temporarily suspended. Does that work for you, princess? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 23, 2023 15:15:47 GMT -5
'Annhilation of mind' is a very Hollywood male expression. Very Mission Impossible. Forthe gender neutral self identified non-binary seekers, do you have another way of expressing it? 😂 The mind will not be destroyed or annihilated. I remember Satch admitting as much the last time this came up. What he likely means is the mind being temporarily suspended. Does that work for you, princess? It's not the mind that dies. A newborn baby has a mind. Joseph Chilton Pearce said we're the most intelligent we will ever be as a newborn (source, Magical Child). We have more neurons than we will ever have, at birth. Pearce said because of the way children are raised, acculturation is a dumbing down process. Via the mind the baby collects and stores data as memory. This stored data becomes the ego. So OTOH there is mind, OToH there is ego, the two are vastly different. The stored data, isn't even destroyed. What is destroyed is the complete identification of the mind (Self-in-the-world) with the ego-as-the enculturated-self. Then ego-self can be used as a tool when necessary. But it's just like putting on a coat when it's cold, as is necessary. The more the ego-self is in control, the less-intelligent we are (ego cannot but be biased). The less ego-self is in control, the more-intelligent we are, the greater is the connection-to-the-Whole, and the greater seeing-from-the-Whole. So a lot of the confusion is just language, definitions. (We shouldn't call ego, mind). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 23, 2023 15:24:43 GMT -5
'Annhilation of mind' is a very Hollywood male expression. Very Mission Impossible. Forthe gen der neutral self identified non-binary seekers, do you have another way of expressing it? 😂 The mind will not be destroyed or annihilated. I remember Satch admitting as much the last time this came up. What he likely means is the mind being temporarily suspended. Does that work for you, princess? Haha yep that appeases my outraged princess self. I don't have a problem with Satch's expression to be clear, I understand his meaning. I might be inclined to say that there is a total withdrawing...briefly (or not) from the rational aspect of mind. Which could certainly seem like an annhilation. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 23, 2023 15:25:53 GMT -5
The mind will not be destroyed or annihilated. I remember Satch admitting as much the last time this came up. What he likely means is the mind being temporarily suspended. Does that work for you, princess? It's not the mind that dies. A newborn baby has a mind. Joseph Chilton Pearce said we're the most intelligent we will ever be as a newborn (source, Magical Child). We have more neurons than we will ever have, at birth. Pearce said because of the way children are raised, acculturation is a dumbing down process. Via the mind the baby collects and stores data as memory. This stored data becomes the ego. So OTOH there is mind, OToH there is ego, the two are vastly different. The stored data, isn't even destroyed. What is destroyed is the complete identification of the mind (Self-in-the-world) with the ego-as-the enculturated-self. Then ego-self can be used as a tool when necessary. But it's just like putting on a coat when it's cold, as is necessary. The more the ego-self is in control, the less-intelligent we are (ego cannot but be biased). The less ego-self is in control, the more-intelligent we are, the greater is the connection-to-the-Whole, and the greater seeing-from-the-Whole. So a lot of the confusion is just language, definitions. (We shouldn't call ego, mind). I like all that, too. |
|
