|
|
Post by shannon on Apr 21, 2010 14:20:49 GMT -5
Hello, everybody. This is my first post here, so I´d like to start by apologizing for my english, which is far from perfect.
Well, here I go! I´d like to talk about Bernadette Roberts, after having had the chance to read her "What is self?". I´d love to read different opinions from people who had met her in a retreat or simply read her books.
I think nobody could doubt her realization, it sounds completely true, and she gives us a really vast map of almost unknown regions. BUT (and I´m really surprised that this topic has not been mentioned before in any other website or article related to this wonderful woman,) she bases her reportedly brand new approach to spirituality ("no-self", something beyond Consciousness, in her own words, and different from the explanations of no-self in the different traditions) on such an extended mistake as the semantic use of the word "Consciousness". This misunderstanding is very common between the followers of Nisargadatta and Ramana.
It´s very clear, considering her explanations on what she understands by "consciousness" or "awareness", that she uses "consciousness" in the same way Nisargadatta did, that is, giving it the sense of "being conscious of something", feelings, thoughts, self-identifications, images, whatever could the mind conceive. Most teachers use the word "mind" for that group of inner/outer percepcions. But when most teachers, such as Atmananda, speak about "consciousness" they talk about the potentiality, a consciouness that does NOT need an object. In other words, Bernadette uses Consciousness as Ramana uses "mind", and when she speaks about "no-self" , a concept she believes to be brand new, she´s simply referring to what Ramana or Nisargadatta define as "Awareness", that is, something that is unmanifest, something like Pure Being, without any perceivable attributes, something that is prior to any manifestation, thus without need to be conscious or aware of something. If fact her explanations of the Unmanifest,Manifest and Holy Spirit are almost identical to the Unmanifest/Manifest pair as expressed with Shiva/Shakti, or to the Negatively Existent Roots of the Tree of Life and its visible branches in the Qabalah.
Do you have an opinion? I´d greatly appreciate any word on it, even if it is to refuse my argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Apr 21, 2010 17:32:46 GMT -5
Don't worry about so many words and definitions!
Instead, tell us how reading those books makes you feel.
How do you perceive yourself?
|
|
|
|
Post by shannon on Apr 22, 2010 5:04:22 GMT -5
Don't worry about so many words and definitions! Instead, tell us how reading those books makes you feel. How do you perceive yourself? Hi again, Porto. I´m not worried at all about it, because I´ve already exhausted my "seeking self", but it can cause a lot of frustration in the people who´s starting to read this kind of books. How do I perceive myself? Well, simply put, after 5 years of reading EVERYTHING and having a meditative discipline, one day I woke up and realized that no way something real could have popped up into existance if it were not present during deep sleep, because that would mean that what I really am is a coming and going fraction. So that thinking center that appears in the morning and dissapears at night is not absolute, nor my true nature, so I dropped it as the center of my life, and along with that thinking self I had this shocking revelation: I should drop my search too, because, where´s God, enlightenment, Shiva, Jesus, Hermetism, Qabalah, etc., during deep sleep? So, what is there during any state? Being, just that, without name and form. Unmanifest. What am I doing here, then? Having big fun and enjoying the words of people who may put this nothingness into words much better than me. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Apr 22, 2010 20:23:46 GMT -5
How do I perceive myself? Well, simply put, after 5 years of reading EVERYTHING and having a meditative discipline, one day I woke up and realized that no way something real could have popped up into existance if it were not present during deep sleep, because that would mean that what I really am is a coming and going fraction. So that thinking center that appears in the morning and dissapears at night is not absolute, nor my true nature, so I dropped it as the center of my life, and along with that thinking self I had this shocking revelation: I should drop my search too, because, where´s God, enlightenment, Shiva, Jesus, Hermetism, Qabalah, etc., during deep sleep? So, what is there during any state? Being, just that, without name and form. Unmanifest. Yes, the deep sleep stuff is very interesting. We are so used to be aware of something, but in deep sleep we are aware of nothing. Well, most of us. If you search this board, we discussed the deep sleep issue several times. As an interesting point of view: Lightmystic continues to be aware in deep sleep. The same goes for Nisargadata. |
|
|
|
Post by shannon on Apr 23, 2010 5:50:50 GMT -5
As an interesting point of view: Lightmystic continues to be aware in deep sleep. The same goes for Nisargadata. That´s a topic I haven´t been able to discuss with anybody, since I never met anyone who could remain slightly aware during deep sleep. Something that Ken Wilber considered the ultimate breakthrough. I remember having stayed "with a light on" during a short time one night while in deep sleep, but I entered a panic state and I immediatly woke up. I´m really curious about the nature of this awareness. Considering it´s not an objective awareness, I suppose it shares characteristics with nirvikalpa samadhi, but I´ll try to find those discussions on the matter. If you already know the threads where this discussion happened, would you please tell me? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 23, 2010 8:08:43 GMT -5
Hi Shannon: Glad to have you join the forum. I just received a DVD of Bernadette Roberts from a friend, but I haven't had a chance to view the entire thing yet. The one section I watched was very interesting, and it raised several interesting issues. I remain curious, however, about why she doesn't seem to recognize the similarities between her experiences and those of so many other people on the path of non-duality. I have a theory about this, but I haven't yet learned enough to verify it to my own satisfaction. According to her first book, she contacted some Buddhists and tried to discuss her experiences with them, but she felt as if they rebuffed her. If she said to them what she claims to have said, they would have misinterpreted her comments as very ego-centric. She also tried to discuss her experiences with various Catholics, but she couldn't find anyone who had had her kinds of experiences. I don;t know what happened to her subsequent to what she described in her first two books, but she may have felt that her experiences were totally unique and gave up searching for common ground.
Another factor in her outlook may have to do with personality. Some people are generalizers who always look for the big picture. On the Meiers-Briggs personality test they are called "perceptualizers" in contrast to those who are "judgers." Roberts may be a "judger" and therefore less likely to see the similarities between her experiences and those of others.
One of the interesting things this forum highlights is the wide range of different experiences people have who follow this path. Last night I enjoyed reading David Godman's recollections of Nisargadatta. He said that Nisargadatta agreed with everything that Ramana Maharshi said except for the heart-center being on the right side of the chest. Nisargadatta had never had an experience that would verify that claim, so he could neither agree nor disagree with it.
AAR I'll return to this discussion after I finish watching and digesting the BR DVD. Cheers.
BTW, I, too, prefer Nisargadatta's distinction between awareness and consciousness. In absolute samadhi, for example, there is pristine non-dual awareness but no content whatsoever. In that state there is absolutely no sense of self. Is this what you are calling "nirvikalpa" samadhi? If so, then it is the same thing that Sekida calls "absolute" samadhi. Just curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Apr 23, 2010 10:16:04 GMT -5
Additionally, you can start a thread and we can discuss it in some detail if you want to. As an interesting point of view: Lightmystic continues to be aware in deep sleep. The same goes for Nisargadata. That´s a topic I haven´t been able to discuss with anybody, since I never met anyone who could remain slightly aware during deep sleep. Something that Ken Wilber considered the ultimate breakthrough. I remember having stayed "with a light on" during a short time one night while in deep sleep, but I entered a panic state and I immediatly woke up. I´m really curious about the nature of this awareness. Considering it´s not an objective awareness, I suppose it shares characteristics with nirvikalpa samadhi, but I´ll try to find those discussions on the matter. If you already know the threads where this discussion happened, would you please tell me? |
|
|
|
Post by shannon on Apr 23, 2010 11:38:43 GMT -5
1/I remain curious, however, about why she doesn't seem to recognize the similarities between her experiences and those of so many other people on the path of non-duality. 2/I enjoyed reading David Godman's recollections of Nisargadatta. He said that Nisargadatta agreed with everything that Ramana Maharshi said except for the heart-center being on the right side of the chest. Nisargadatta had never had an experience that would verify that claim, so he could neither agree nor disagree with it. 3/BTW, I, too, prefer Nisargadatta's distinction between awareness and consciousness. In absolute samadhi, for example, there is pristine non-dual awareness but no content whatsoever. In that state there is absolutely no sense of self. Is this what you are calling "nirvikalpa" samadhi? 1/ Yes, it´s strange. One of the problems may be that she spoke with people who were followers of a religion, Budhism or Hinduism, for example. But many people (with the obvious exceptions), once they have understood their true nature, drop their traditions, while most of the ones who are still "seekers" remain attached to the those religions. Very probably she spoke with representants of the second category, people who still consider themselves as Hindus, for example, people that still haven´t realized that "no-self" Bernadette speaks about. I mean, if she had directly spoken to somebody like Nisargadatta she would realize they´re on the same boat. 2/Yes, I read them too, they´re great. And here there´s a perfect example of two sages overcoming the semantic differences. Nisargadatta, as Bernadette herself, denied the eternity of Consciousness, because he gave that word the sense of Ramana´s "mind". But Maharaj knew Ramana and him spoke about the same unmanifest reality, while Bernadette struggled with those concepts. 3/ Yes, that´s the sense I give to nirvikalpa samadhi. Thanks for your words. |
|
|
|
Post by shannon on Apr 23, 2010 11:43:25 GMT -5
Additionally, you can start a thread and we can discuss it in some detail if you want to. Hello, Lightmystic. As soon as I got ten minutes, I´ll open that thread. I´m really interested in your personal take on the matter! |
|
|
|
Post by karen on Apr 23, 2010 12:17:27 GMT -5
I don't think awareness in dreamless sleep represents anything all that advanced because I will often notice points when dreaming begins from dreamless sleep, and the awareness between the two are seamless.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Apr 23, 2010 14:28:33 GMT -5
Good point. Yes, this is referring to something a bit different. It's not about the MIND being aware during sleep. If the mind were Aware, it wouldn't really be sleeping. It's more about noticing that subtle continuity that goes one whether the mind is asleep or not. It's not something THOUGHT about during sleep, because the actual thinking about would indicate not really sleeping. So it can only be THOUGHT about in retrospect. That said, there is a subtle Awareness/continuity that continues whether we are thinking or not. It's the exact same Awareness between thoughts. In moments between thoughts (you can try it now - just don't think for a moment-) there is Awareness, but no Awareness OF anything, because there would have to be a thought process to define "things" to be Aware of. But Awareness continues - the world doesn't go dark - it's just that nothing is RECOGNIZED, because it's the mind that defines things in the first place. Starting to recognize the difference between that process of being Aware itself and the thinking process of the mind starts to show that the Awareness is in no way limited to the mind. It just feels that way because we identify with the thinking process, believing that is who we are on a deep emotional level, when the whole thing has truly been automatic this whole time. I don't think awareness in dreamless sleep represents anything all that advanced because I will often notice points when dreaming begins from dreamless sleep, and the awareness between the two are seamless. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Apr 26, 2010 11:22:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by shannon on Apr 26, 2010 13:58:50 GMT -5
Thank you, Porto! I´ll read it as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by m on Nov 29, 2010 16:39:12 GMT -5
I just love this website ! It seems everything is in there! I just have to navigate and pop ! here it is ! I so suffered of having no one to talk too ! To start with, I also am puzzled by bernadette roberts's dismissing of hindu view but more important, I am most interested in her "no-self" even if I don't understand how I can be interested in something that (if real) is out of my "seeker's reach". Since although facinated by this topic, I don't now how to move from here. So I kind of just "wait and see". Lightmystic: Just like with bernadette robert I sense-feel-understand you have something for me in your "continuity". So I found myself in the same position with you than with bernadette robert: as if a baby remembering the knowledge of an old wise man. I don't even know what to tell, or ask, or propose except, may be, a very not important remark you are using a time metaphor (continuity) where I would be using a kind of space metaphor (simultaneous) that which is (in my words) anterior to void-awareness itself is kind of everywhere-or-nowhere (no time no space). How do i know it ? I don't know ( whatever the understanding of "I don't know) but for sure it's real has always been and will remains forever m Good point. Yes, this is referring to something a bit different. It's not about the MIND being aware during sleep. If the mind were Aware, it wouldn't really be sleeping. It's more about noticing that subtle continuity that goes one whether the mind is asleep or not. It's not something THOUGHT about during sleep, because the actual thinking about would indicate not really sleeping. So it can only be THOUGHT about in retrospect. That said, there is a subtle Awareness/continuity that continues whether we are thinking or not. It's the exact same Awareness between thoughts. In moments between thoughts (you can try it now - just don't think for a moment-) there is Awareness, but no Awareness OF anything, because there would have to be a thought process to define "things" to be Aware of. But Awareness continues - the world doesn't go dark - it's just that nothing is RECOGNIZED, because it's the mind that defines things in the first place. Starting to recognize the difference between that process of being Aware itself and the thinking process of the mind starts to show that the Awareness is in no way limited to the mind. It just feels that way because we identify with the thinking process, believing that is who we are on a deep emotional level, when the whole thing has truly been automatic this whole time. I don't think awareness in dreamless sleep represents anything all that advanced because I will often notice points when dreaming begins from dreamless sleep, and the awareness between the two are seamless. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Nov 29, 2010 19:30:56 GMT -5
M There is a wonderful summrary on her book no-self on nonduality.com here's the link www.nonduality.com/berna.htmMichael I just love this website ! It seems everything is in there! I just have to navigate and pop ! here it is ! I so suffered of having no one to talk too ! To start with, I also am puzzled by bernadette roberts's dismissing of hindu view but more important, I am most interested in her "no-self" even if I don't understand how I can be interested in something that (if real) is out of my "seeker's reach". Since although facinated by this topic, I don't now how to move from here. So I kind of just "wait and see". [/b] Just like with bernadette robert I sense-feel-understand you have something for me in your "continuity". So I found myself in the same position with you than with bernadette robert: as if a baby remembering the knowledge of an old wise man. I don't even know what to tell, or ask, or propose except, may be, a very not important remark you are using a time metaphor (continuity) where I would be using a kind of space metaphor (simultaneous) that which is (in my words) anterior to void-awareness itself is kind of everywhere-or-nowhere (no time no space). How do i know it ? I don't know ( whatever the understanding of "I don't know) but for sure it's real has always been and will remains forever m[/quote] |
|
