|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 6, 2024 1:46:04 GMT -5
vasanas == beliefsramana-maharshi.weebly.com/vasanas.html- #2 July, 1936
Cohen: Should all vasanas (mental habits) be completely overcome before Self-Realisation takes place, or may some remain for Self-Realisation to destroy?
Bhagavan: Vasanas which do not obstruct Self-Realisation remain. In Yoga Vasishtha two classes of vasanas are distinguished: those of enjoyment and those of bondage. The former remain even after Mukti is attained, but the latter are destroyed by it.
Attachment is the cause of binding vasanas, but enjoyment without attachment does not bind and continues even in Sahaja.
- Excerpt from Talk 385
Vasanas are of four kinds:
(1) Pure (Suddha)
(2) Impure (Malina)
(3) Mixed (Madhya)
(4) Good (Sat)
according as the Jnanis are:
(1) The Supreme (varishta)
(2) The Best (variya)
(3) Better (vara)
(4) Good (vit)
Their fruits are reaped in three ways: (1) of our own will (swechha), (2) by others’ will (parechha) and (3) involuntarily (anichha). These have been Jnanis like Gautama, Vyasa, Suka and Janaka./li]
- Talks with Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi
Talk 13
Devotee: What are the obstacles which hinder realisation of the Self?
Maharshi: They are habits of mind (vasanas).
Talk 28
D.: Distractions result from inherited tendencies. Can they be cast off too?
M.: Yes. Many have done so. Believe it! They did so because they believed they could. Vasanas (predispositions) can be obliterated. It is done by concentration on that which is free from vasanas, and yet is their core.
D.: How long is the practice to continue?
M.: Till success is achieved and until yoga-liberation becomes permanent. Success begets success. If one distraction is conquered the next is conquered and so on, until all are finally conquered. The process is like reducing an enemy’s fort by slaying its man-power — one by one, as each issues out.
D.: What is the goal of this process?
M.: Realising the Real.
Thanks, seems Ramana agrees with me. From the link, the beginning: Experience gained without rooting out all the vasanas cannot remain steady. Efforts must be made to eradicate the vasanas. Otherwise rebirth after death takes place. ~ Talk 172Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi often stressed the importance of removing vasanas (tendencies) for Self-Realization in his talks. The following are key excerpts/selections from Talks with Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, as well as other Sri Ramana books, on this very important topic. Only the part related to vasanas is reproduced here, please refer to the original source (provided) for the complete discussion should you wish more information. When researching vasanas, it is of importance to note that there are both good (suvasana) and bad (kuvasana) vasanas, and also two types of vasanas: bandha hetuh and bhoga hetuh. Bandha hetuh is the vasana that obstructs Self-Realization. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Then it picks up with where you quoted ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Where did you come up with vasanas = beliefs? lolly wrote: the current system is under tension, so we can say there is pent up energy which is held in place by a 'force of will' so to speak, and that force is generated by vesana, which by definition, are unintentional reactive tendencies.Also by lolly: In the eastern lexicon, Vassana are more like the reactive tendencies that generate sankara which collect as the storehouse of potentials, so in the practical sense, when the reactivity stops, the generation of sankara ceases. However, Vassana are like habits, and breaking those habits is a deliberate endeavour. In the general discussion we tend to mix meanings, and vassana and sankara get mixed together, but I think it's worth categorising them separately, because the cessation of vassana is not the neutralisation of the sankara. IOW, vassana (winding up) gives the toy sankara (stored potential). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So Ramana agrees with lolly. So it seems vasanas are more than beliefs. I look at them like recordings, like the grooves in a record. An event a person or a situation can pull up a recording like setting a needle down on a record, these are vasanas stored as connections between neurons in the brain. But more than that, they are also recorded in the storehouse, the alayavijnana. This is a finer body, *nonmaterial* (so it doesn't die when the physical body dies). When I was 17 I became interested in these strange ideas. Then, you saw in ads in magazines to join the Rosicrucians and you got lessons through the mail. Now, my Grandma had a sister who married a Caldwell, he was the black sheep of the family, he was a Rosicrucian. So my Mother forbid me to join the Rosicrucians. So I promised I would not. I could do this as I had already found Astara, a group from Upton, California. I still have my lessons, packed away somewhere here. One thing I remember, the concept of seed atoms. Same idea, seed atoms from the physical glands, each connected with a chakra, are stored in the alayavijnana (astral body and mental body and causal body). I met Caldwell once (he had been in the Army, so he came to be called by his last name). He and wife came to visit my parents, so I sat with him on the fireplace, and we chatted about 15 minutes, while everyone else had a separate conversation. Before they left he said I've got something I want to give you. He went to his car and brought back a little book he had printed, My Lifetime of Psychic Experiences. I still have it, 46 pages. It was published in 1976, probably newly published. 'You' (plural) think you don't have vasanas? Allow discussion of politics, then food fights will begin again. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 6, 2024 20:33:01 GMT -5
I think of much of what ZD writes as a sort of inadvertent nondual poetry. Comparatively speaking, I find it quite unique. You're welcome to try to prove the contrary.  He seems to have made it his lifes work.  I just offer up my view. I've said many times, the Gurdjieff view cannot be understood within the ND view. I will give one example, I've mentioned it before. What Gurdjieff meant by awakening is entirely different from the ND meaning of awakening. I read the following sentence 48 years ago, it probably didn't even register. But I've read it many times since. On the second or third time, I began to wonder what it meant. After some years I understood. I've mentioned many times that we can be less conscious, or more conscious. ZD has always replied, that's not the case. My primary message is that there is always further. Further means to know oneself and the capacity to take in more of time and space. None of this is new, I've posted it before. But here's what's new, Ouspensky quoting Gurdjieff: "...a man cannot awaken by himself. ...all...can go to sleep at the same time and dream that they are waking up. ...They must be looked after by a man who is not asleep or who does not fall asleep as easily as they do, or who goes to sleep consciously when this is possible, when it will do no harm either to himself or to others. They must find such a man and hire him to wake them and not allow them to fall asleep again. Without this it is impossible to awaken. This is what must be understood." In Search of the Miraculous, by Ouspensky, page 144. The bold is specifically the pertinent part. ZD doesn't like numbers, but I came to understand the bold referred to a man #5, which never just happens. So, from Gurdjieff's perspective, virtually everyone here proudly proclaims that they are asleep (but of course they don't know this). But it is not even as easy as it seems from this quote. Because there are contrary *forces* acting in any one individual. The teaching must be followed without any coercion whatsoever. You have to continually submit to the teaching, voluntarily, every day. So anyone can quit at any point. And you can merely think you are just moving on, but you are moving on because you are asleep. You're asleep, and you don't even know it. You have to first recognize that you are asleep, and then you have to want to wake up, eventually, at any cost. So I just give my view, I'm not remotely interested in the majority of what's offered here. Because it isn't enough. What I like to see is real struggle and effort to know, honesty, integrity, you know who you are. So you can continually try to understand sdp from your view, it's never going to happen. Or not. EDIT ten hours later, 7:45 AM. I would add: So those who practice and promote practice, are more in alignment with the advance of Consciousness. Those who don't, are stuck, are headed down a dead end street, but of course don't know it. Nothing stands still. We get glimpses. A glimpse doesn't mean we have it all, or we are it all. A glimpse is just a message in a bottle, come and find ~me~. Recognizing one is asleep is not the same as awakening. But to each his own. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 7, 2024 8:53:53 GMT -5
If I practice because I think it will get me somewhere then I've been bamboozled.
Rocks are blithely denied existence until they bonk you in the head.
The problem with existential questions is the one asking them. "Eat your soup."
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 7, 2024 10:34:17 GMT -5
If I practice because I think it will get me somewhere then I've been bamboozled. Rocks are blithely denied existence until they bonk you in the head. The problem with existential questions is the one asking them. "Eat your soup." That's one way to look at it. In my case I found that I could discover the answers to any existential questions that I had by simply bearing in mind what I wanted to know, mulling the issue over, and then shifting attention away from thoughts using many different meditative activities. The answers would suddenly an unpredictably appear, and I would frequently be amazed at how simple the answers were. I assume that the answer to any question that arises already exists in the subconscious, so it appears to be a matter of simply contemplating whatever the question is until the subconscious reveals the obvious answer. It's possible that some people are more prone to sudden realizations in this manner than other people, but that sort of thing has never been studied to the best of my knowledge, and in the future it's possible that dynamic brain imaging may shed some light on this. Not only has this character found answers to dozens (perhaps hundreds) of formal Zen koans, but existential questions about personal relationships have also been resolved in the same way, sometimes in dramatic ways. 25 years ago I had an even stranger thing occur. My young daughter majoring in business made a financial claim that made no sense to me. It seemed counter-intuitive. Her claim was so bizarre from my POV that I began to ponder the issue. Every day I drove around in my truck wondering, "How could that be possible?" I did not major in business and had no formal training in finance or business, but because she was majoring in business, I took her claim seriously. After three days of contemplating the issue, I was driving along one afternoon when I suddenly had a major realization about the issue, and that realization was totally life-changing. It caused me to sell our home and move into a small apartment, take an accounting course, read at least ten books about personal finance, and make dozens of life changes. Ironically, twenty years later, due to a posting on the internet, we realized that she had made a mistake in her calculation, but her claim turned out to be accurate for a totally different reason. FWIW, she and I are now writing a book about personal finance in an attempt to help many of her friends who live paycheck to paycheck realize what I realized that day while driving in my truck. Thinking back about that issue, it makes me wonder if some people are simply more prone to those kinds of mind-blowing realizations. In my case, meditation and the Rinzai approach to koan resolution gave me confidence that I could solve any question by simply contemplating the issue and then turning the issue over to the subconscious. I no longer have any questions, but if I did, I know exactly how I would go about finding the answers. To each his own. One approach regarding ND is to tell people to give up the search. I take the opposite approach; I tell people to search and keep searching until they find what they're looking for. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus gives exactly the same advice. In short, the answers to all questions are "inside" and how one accesses the "inside" will vary from human to human. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 7, 2024 17:15:59 GMT -5
He seems to have made it his lifes work. I just offer up my view. I've said many times, the Gurdjieff view cannot be understood within the ND view. I will give one example, I've mentioned it before. What Gurdjieff meant by awakening is entirely different from the ND meaning of awakening. I read the following sentence 48 years ago, it probably didn't even register. But I've read it many times since. On the second or third time, I began to wonder what it meant. After some years I understood. I've mentioned many times that we can be less conscious, or more conscious. ZD has always replied, that's not the case. My primary message is that there is always further. Further means to know oneself and the capacity to take in more of time and space. None of this is new, I've posted it before. But here's what's new, Ouspensky quoting Gurdjieff: "...a man cannot awaken by himself. ...all...can go to sleep at the same time and dream that they are waking up. ...They must be looked after by a man who is not asleep or who does not fall asleep as easily as they do, or who goes to sleep consciously when this is possible, when it will do no harm either to himself or to others. They must find such a man and hire him to wake them and not allow them to fall asleep again. Without this it is impossible to awaken. This is what must be understood." In Search of the Miraculous, by Ouspensky, page 144. The bold is specifically the pertinent part. ZD doesn't like numbers, but I came to understand the bold referred to a man #5, which never just happens. So, from Gurdjieff's perspective, virtually everyone here proudly proclaims that they are asleep (but of course they don't know this). But it is not even as easy as it seems from this quote. Because there are contrary *forces* acting in any one individual. The teaching must be followed without any coercion whatsoever. You have to continually submit to the teaching, voluntarily, every day. So anyone can quit at any point. And you can merely think you are just moving on, but you are moving on because you are asleep. You're asleep, and you don't even know it. You have to first recognize that you are asleep, and then you have to want to wake up, eventually, at any cost. So I just give my view, I'm not remotely interested in the majority of what's offered here. Because it isn't enough. What I like to see is real struggle and effort to know, honesty, integrity, you know who you are. So you can continually try to understand sdp from your view, it's never going to happen. Or not. EDIT ten hours later, 7:45 AM. I would add: So those who practice and promote practice, are more in alignment with the advance of Consciousness. Those who don't, are stuck, are headed down a dead end street, but of course don't know it. Nothing stands still. We get glimpses. A glimpse doesn't mean we have it all, or we are it all. A glimpse is just a message in a bottle, come and find ~me~. Recognizing one is asleep is not the same as awakening. But to each his own. Is it time to try another online forum then? gurdjieffworldforum.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 7, 2024 22:44:10 GMT -5
I just offer up my view. I've said many times, the Gurdjieff view cannot be understood within the ND view. I will give one example, I've mentioned it before. What Gurdjieff meant by awakening is entirely different from the ND meaning of awakening. I read the following sentence 48 years ago, it probably didn't even register. But I've read it many times since. On the second or third time, I began to wonder what it meant. After some years I understood. I've mentioned many times that we can be less conscious, or more conscious. ZD has always replied, that's not the case. My primary message is that there is always further. Further means to know oneself and the capacity to take in more of time and space. None of this is new, I've posted it before. But here's what's new, Ouspensky quoting Gurdjieff: "...a man cannot awaken by himself. ...all...can go to sleep at the same time and dream that they are waking up. ...They must be looked after by a man who is not asleep or who does not fall asleep as easily as they do, or who goes to sleep consciously when this is possible, when it will do no harm either to himself or to others. They must find such a man and hire him to wake them and not allow them to fall asleep again. Without this it is impossible to awaken. This is what must be understood." In Search of the Miraculous, by Ouspensky, page 144. The bold is specifically the pertinent part. ZD doesn't like numbers, but I came to understand the bold referred to a man #5, which never just happens. So, from Gurdjieff's perspective, virtually everyone here proudly proclaims that they are asleep (but of course they don't know this). But it is not even as easy as it seems from this quote. Because there are contrary *forces* acting in any one individual. The teaching must be followed without any coercion whatsoever. You have to continually submit to the teaching, voluntarily, every day. So anyone can quit at any point. And you can merely think you are just moving on, but you are moving on because you are asleep. You're asleep, and you don't even know it. You have to first recognize that you are asleep, and then you have to want to wake up, eventually, at any cost. So I just give my view, I'm not remotely interested in the majority of what's offered here. Because it isn't enough. What I like to see is real struggle and effort to know, honesty, integrity, you know who you are. So you can continually try to understand sdp from your view, it's never going to happen. Or not. EDIT ten hours later, 7:45 AM. I would add: So those who practice and promote practice, are more in alignment with the advance of Consciousness. Those who don't, are stuck, are headed down a dead end street, but of course don't know it. Nothing stands still. We get glimpses. A glimpse doesn't mean we have it all, or we are it all. A glimpse is just a message in a bottle, come and find ~me~. Recognizing one is asleep is not the same as awakening. But to each his own. Is it time to try another online forum then? gurdjieffworldforum.org/ Everybody presents their philosophy, experience and realisation here. Do you have any? Interested to know because all these years I have been reading yours and tried to find something out of what you write but I find nothing. Did I miss something? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 8, 2024 1:30:13 GMT -5
Everybody presents their philosophy, experience and realisation here. Do you have any? Interested to know because all these years I have been reading yours and tried to find something out of what you write but I find nothing. Did I miss something?You find frustration which, last time I checked is a powerful tool for transformation. In fact without it would Purifcation even be a thing? |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 8, 2024 9:28:06 GMT -5
If I practice because I think it will get me somewhere then I've been bamboozled. Rocks are blithely denied existence until they bonk you in the head. The problem with existential questions is the one asking them. "Eat your soup." That's one way to look at it. In my case I found that I could discover the answers to any existential questions that I had by simply bearing in mind what I wanted to know, mulling the issue over, and then shifting attention away from thoughts using many different meditative activities. The answers would suddenly an unpredictably appear, and I would frequently be amazed at how simple the answers were. I assume that the answer to any question that arises already exists in the subconscious, so it appears to be a matter of simply contemplating whatever the question is until the subconscious reveals the obvious answer. It's possible that some people are more prone to sudden realizations in this manner than other people, but that sort of thing has never been studied to the best of my knowledge, and in the future it's possible that dynamic brain imaging may shed some light on this. Not only has this character found answers to dozens (perhaps hundreds) of formal Zen koans, but existential questions about personal relationships have also been resolved in the same way, sometimes in dramatic ways. 25 years ago I had an even stranger thing occur. My young daughter majoring in business made a financial claim that made no sense to me. It seemed counter-intuitive. Her claim was so bizarre from my POV that I began to ponder the issue. Every day I drove around in my truck wondering, "How could that be possible?" I did not major in business and had no formal training in finance or business, but because she was majoring in business, I took her claim seriously. After three days of contemplating the issue, I was driving along one afternoon when I suddenly had a major realization about the issue, and that realization was totally life-changing. It caused me to sell our home and move into a small apartment, take an accounting course, read at least ten books about personal finance, and make dozens of life changes. Ironically, twenty years later, due to a posting on the internet, we realized that she had made a mistake in her calculation, but her claim turned out to be accurate for a totally different reason. FWIW, she and I are now writing a book about personal finance in an attempt to help many of her friends who live paycheck to paycheck realize what I realized that day while driving in my truck. Thinking back about that issue, it makes me wonder if some people are simply more prone to those kinds of mind-blowing realizations. In my case, meditation and the Rinzai approach to koan resolution gave me confidence that I could solve any question by simply contemplating the issue and then turning the issue over to the subconscious. I no longer have any questions, but if I did, I know exactly how I would go about finding the answers. To each his own. One approach regarding ND is to tell people to give up the search. I take the opposite approach; I tell people to search and keep searching until they find what they're looking for. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus gives exactly the same advice. In short, the answers to all questions are "inside" and how one accesses the "inside" will vary from human to human. "Who am I? " has no answer. The intellect might offer some, but they would be incomplete. The solution to any notoriously difficult unsolved math problem would garner more financial benefit, plus a Nobel prize, than a book on personal finance. We could split the Nobel prize since I pointed you in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 8, 2024 10:36:22 GMT -5
That's one way to look at it. In my case I found that I could discover the answers to any existential questions that I had by simply bearing in mind what I wanted to know, mulling the issue over, and then shifting attention away from thoughts using many different meditative activities. The answers would suddenly an unpredictably appear, and I would frequently be amazed at how simple the answers were. I assume that the answer to any question that arises already exists in the subconscious, so it appears to be a matter of simply contemplating whatever the question is until the subconscious reveals the obvious answer. It's possible that some people are more prone to sudden realizations in this manner than other people, but that sort of thing has never been studied to the best of my knowledge, and in the future it's possible that dynamic brain imaging may shed some light on this. Not only has this character found answers to dozens (perhaps hundreds) of formal Zen koans, but existential questions about personal relationships have also been resolved in the same way, sometimes in dramatic ways. 25 years ago I had an even stranger thing occur. My young daughter majoring in business made a financial claim that made no sense to me. It seemed counter-intuitive. Her claim was so bizarre from my POV that I began to ponder the issue. Every day I drove around in my truck wondering, "How could that be possible?" I did not major in business and had no formal training in finance or business, but because she was majoring in business, I took her claim seriously. After three days of contemplating the issue, I was driving along one afternoon when I suddenly had a major realization about the issue, and that realization was totally life-changing. It caused me to sell our home and move into a small apartment, take an accounting course, read at least ten books about personal finance, and make dozens of life changes. Ironically, twenty years later, due to a posting on the internet, we realized that she had made a mistake in her calculation, but her claim turned out to be accurate for a totally different reason. FWIW, she and I are now writing a book about personal finance in an attempt to help many of her friends who live paycheck to paycheck realize what I realized that day while driving in my truck. Thinking back about that issue, it makes me wonder if some people are simply more prone to those kinds of mind-blowing realizations. In my case, meditation and the Rinzai approach to koan resolution gave me confidence that I could solve any question by simply contemplating the issue and then turning the issue over to the subconscious. I no longer have any questions, but if I did, I know exactly how I would go about finding the answers. To each his own. One approach regarding ND is to tell people to give up the search. I take the opposite approach; I tell people to search and keep searching until they find what they're looking for. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus gives exactly the same advice. In short, the answers to all questions are "inside" and how one accesses the "inside" will vary from human to human. The intellect might offer some, but they would be incomplete. The solution to any notoriously difficult unsolved math problem would garner more financial benefit, plus a Nobel prize, than a book on personal finance. We could split the Nobel prize since I pointed you in the right direction. The "Who am I?" question has a definite answer that is mind-blowing. The answer does not come from the intellect because the intellect is incapable of grasping the living truth. Something much deeper than the intellect must resolve the koan. We can call that deeper something "the intelligence underlying all of Reality." Buddhists call that something "Big Mind" to distinguish it from the small mind we call "the intellect." The reason that RM suggested that people pursue that question is that it can lead to a direct apprehension of what he called "the Self," which is infinite and incomprehensible. Only the Self can know the Self, so that's why Angelus Selecius (sp?), the Christian mystic, wrote, "God can't come to visit you unless you aren't there." IOW, only THIS can know THIS when THIS is in an undivided state. To attain such an undivided state, one must, in the words of another Christian mystic, Jacob Bohm, "Fall into that where no creature dwelleth." What's being pointed to is beyond the mind, so no amount of thinking will help one discover what Boehm and other similar sages are pointing to. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 8, 2024 13:48:37 GMT -5
"Who am I? " has no answer. The intellect might offer some, but they would be incomplete. The solution to any notoriously difficult unsolved math problem would garner more financial benefit, plus a Nobel prize, than a book on personal finance. We could split the Nobel prize since I pointed you in the right direction. The "Who am I?" question has a definite answer that is mind-blowing. The answer does not come from the intellect because the intellect is incapable of grasping the living truth. Something much deeper than the intellect must resolve the koan. We can call that deeper something "the intelligence underlying all of Reality." Buddhists call that something "Big Mind" to distinguish it from the small mind we call "the intellect." The reason that RM suggested that people pursue that question is that it can lead to a direct apprehension of what he called "the Self," which is infinite and incomprehensible. Only the Self can know the Self, so that's why Angelus Selecius (sp?), the Christian mystic, wrote, "God can't come to visit you unless you aren't there." IOW, only THIS can know THIS when THIS is in an undivided state. To attain such an undivided state, one must, in the words of another Christian mystic, Jacob Bohm, "Fall into that where no creature dwelleth." What's being pointed to is beyond the mind, so no amount of thinking will help one discover what Boehm and other similar sages are pointing to. My definition of "answer" is a bit different than yours. It pertains to things that can be explained. If it can't be explained and is beyond comprehension then it's an unprovable truth not based on logic. I don't call that an answer because answers are offered in explanation: Oneness, God, Being and all fall short. Why I say it has no answer. We're on the same page, we disagree on the meaning of the word " answer." |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 8, 2024 14:09:17 GMT -5
The "Who am I?" question has a definite answer that is mind-blowing. The answer does not come from the intellect because the intellect is incapable of grasping the living truth. Something much deeper than the intellect must resolve the koan. We can call that deeper something "the intelligence underlying all of Reality." Buddhists call that something "Big Mind" to distinguish it from the small mind we call "the intellect." The reason that RM suggested that people pursue that question is that it can lead to a direct apprehension of what he called "the Self," which is infinite and incomprehensible. Only the Self can know the Self, so that's why Angelus Selecius (sp?), the Christian mystic, wrote, "God can't come to visit you unless you aren't there." IOW, only THIS can know THIS when THIS is in an undivided state. To attain such an undivided state, one must, in the words of another Christian mystic, Jacob Bohm, "Fall into that where no creature dwelleth." What's being pointed to is beyond the mind, so no amount of thinking will help one discover what Boehm and other similar sages are pointing to. My definition of "answer" is a bit different than yours. It pertains to things that can be explained. If it can't be explained and is beyond comprehension then it's an unprovable truth not based on logic. I don't call that an answer because answers are offered in explanation: Oneness, God, Being and all fall short. Why I say it has no answer. We're on the same page, we disagree on the meaning of the word " answer." I use the word "answer" to mean "understanding." Things can be apprehended that can enable the mind to understand its own limitations. No, the mind will never understand THIS, but it can understand that it is incapable of understanding THIS, and it can understand that THIS is the doer of all that is done. I think it was Plato who wrote that someone asked Socrates if he understood the truth. Socrates supposedly answered, "No, but I understand this not-understanding." I think he was pointing to the same thing. In my case, I had many specific existential questions. The most basic question that was underlying all other questions was, "What's going on?" After it was seen that the "me" was an illusion and that the process of reality, or THIS, was the actual doer of everything, and IS everything, the mind was put to rest. I call that "a definitive answer to the question." The very first CC in 1984 showed me, conclusively, that reality was NOT what I had imagined it was, and that what it IS is beyond human comprehension. That's a kind of knowing that is direct and unmediated by mind. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 8, 2024 15:03:33 GMT -5
My definition of "answer" is a bit different than yours. It pertains to things that can be explained. If it can't be explained and is beyond comprehension then it's an unprovable truth not based on logic. I don't call that an answer because answers are offered in explanation: Oneness, God, Being and all fall short. Why I say it has no answer. We're on the same page, we disagree on the meaning of the word " answer." I use the word "answer" to mean "understanding." Things can be apprehended that can enable the mind to understand its own limitations. No, the mind will never understand THIS, but it can understand that it is incapable of understanding THIS, and it can understand that THIS is the doer of all that is done. I think it was Plato who wrote that someone asked Socrates if he understood the truth. Socrates supposedly answered, "No, but I understand this not-understanding." I think he was pointing to the same thing. In my case, I had many specific existential questions. The most basic question that was underlying all other questions was, "What's going on?" After it was seen that the "me" was an illusion and that the process of reality, or THIS, was the actual doer of everything, and IS everything, the mind was put to rest. I call that "a definitive answer to the question." The very first CC in 1984 showed me, conclusively, that reality was NOT what I had imagined it was, and that what it IS is beyond human comprehension. That's a kind of knowing that is direct and unmediated by mind. The preferred implement of the intellect, logic, has limitations. I realized this because there were no clear answers to the questions I had about the human condition. It seemed at every turn there was a paradox. Look it's very basic. RM's instruction in self inquiry was reject all answers offered because they will come from the ego. He said we can't know God we can only be God. This is silence and stillness. I haven't had any CC's and don't expect them. That's your path. I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I follow mine. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 8, 2024 16:41:23 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing- ... in the Apology, Plato relates that Socrates accounts for his seeming wiser than any other person because he does not imagine that he knows what he does not know.
... ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.
... I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either. [Henry Cary literal translation of 1897]
- ... there is a passage in Plato's Apology, where Socrates says that after discussing with someone he started thinking that:
τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.
I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 8, 2024 16:42:38 GMT -5
I use the word "answer" to mean "understanding." Things can be apprehended that can enable the mind to understand its own limitations. No, the mind will never understand THIS, but it can understand that it is incapable of understanding THIS, and it can understand that THIS is the doer of all that is done. I think it was Plato who wrote that someone asked Socrates if he understood the truth. Socrates supposedly answered, "No, but I understand this not-understanding." I think he was pointing to the same thing. In my case, I had many specific existential questions. The most basic question that was underlying all other questions was, "What's going on?" After it was seen that the "me" was an illusion and that the process of reality, or THIS, was the actual doer of everything, and IS everything, the mind was put to rest. I call that "a definitive answer to the question." The very first CC in 1984 showed me, conclusively, that reality was NOT what I had imagined it was, and that what it IS is beyond human comprehension. That's a kind of knowing that is direct and unmediated by mind. The preferred implement of the intellect, logic, has limitations. I realized this because there were no clear answers to the questions I had about the human condition. It seemed at every turn there was a paradox. Look it's very basic. RM's instruction in self inquiry was reject all answers offered because they will come from the ego. He said we can't know God we can only be God. This is silence and stillness. I haven't had any CC's and don't expect them. That's your path. I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I follow mine. I understand, and for that reason I encourage people to follow their own path because there's no SVP at the center of any human's path. IOW, it's impossible to go wrong. THIS unfolds differently for each human. I also agree that silence and stillness is probably the most effective path to the kind of realization that will put the mind permanently to rest. *bows in admiration to a dharma friend on the pathless path* |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 8, 2024 16:53:22 GMT -5
Seth (#308, TES7): - A disciplined but intuitive ego then becomes a necessity in order that such new experience may be brought under useful control, in your terms. The ego becomes more necessary you see, not less, for it must learn to synthesize the gained experience in recognizable terms within your system. Otherwise if the ego is pushed aside it will rise up in arms and in opposition, and can be highly dangerous.
It goes without saying that in our methods the ego is changed rather completely but gradually in many cases, and only through its own willingness to do so. It recognizes its identity as a part of the inner self. Therefore basically it has no need to fight the inner self, since it knows its survival is dependent upon this inner framework.
The ego to some large extent, you see, has extended its functions and performance. Since our sessions began, for example, it has expanded in both of your cases. It has expanded not because it has grown more egotistic but because it has accepted as a part of itself, intuitional realizations and inner psychic responsibilities in a way that it did not consider before.
Psychic Illumination
In other words, portions of the inner self have joined the strictly egotistical functions. The ego in such cases is so attuned that it becomes almost something else. We are coming here toward a definition of illumination in psychic terms. The ego is not banished. It joins with portions of the inner self previously unconscious, and illuminates the whole personality. It is no longer primarily physically oriented. Therefore it is no longer an ego in the terms usually meant.
Again, this is an important point. The ego has accepted the goals of the inner self. Its identity has already changed, so that its main concern is no longer primarily with physical manipulation, but with inner growth and development.
This does not mean that it ignores its earlier functions. In true expansion of consciousness then, you become more and more aware, more conscious of inner realities that were previously never realized on a conscious level. Since the ego is presently your main vehicle of consciousness, it will not be obliterated. It will indeed be resurrected. It simply changes not only its form, but its inner core, accepting as a part of itself realities which it previously ignored out of fear, ignorance and insecurity.
It becomes more and more a portion of the supraconsciousness. Its new function is to help direct the overall personality so that inner abilities and illuminations can also reach physical reality.
The material in tonight’s session is highly relevant, and we shall continue it.
The ego has completely changed its structure. It has changed its electromagnetic identity in your cases, since our sessions. It has learned, to some extent, to assimilate your inner experiences. In the long run this is the most effective method. And in the long run no consciousness expansion can occur unless the ego structure is so altered.
There are other methods that also alter it, but our methods are the most advantageous from many standpoints.
|
|
