Samsara

[neti neti]

11 hours ago, Jeff said:

The issue for me is the big assumption with the “reflection in mind” necessarily being the actual reality, when it could simply be a mind stuff dream. 

 

The issue for me is the big assumption that you keep assuming this is a big assumption.

 

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I guess I'm a troll now.

Edited March 17, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

6 hours ago, 3bob said:

Siva can not "forget" Shakti and Shakti can not forget Siva, 

and whatever springs from the Self returns to the Self,

 

 

I thought this was apropos, for your and my enjoyment.

 

Quote

"Knowing [chit] oneself to be the reality [sat] is bliss [ananda]. Knowing oneself, the Self, to be the body is the deluded knowledge which is called ‘mind’ [chittam]. It is only because of this wrong knowledge that such a thing as ‘misery’ appears to come into existence. However, when one knows oneself to be Self [atman], since the chittam then loses its nature of movement and attains the nature of consciousness [chit-rupa], it knows itself to be the reality [sat].

 

Since this union of sat and chit is the fullness of ananda, misery will be known to be ever non-existent and the truth that Self alone is sat, chit and ananda will shine forth. The state of supreme bliss [paramananda] which is experienced when the power of consciousness or knowing [chit-sakti] and the Lord [Siva] whose nature is existence [sat] thus become one, is the true significance of the form of Ardhanariswara [the Lord who is both Siva and Sakti]." ~Sadhu Om

 

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

7 hours ago, steve said:

 

What can leave the Self?

What can return?

 

Nothing but Self, in its appearance of coming or going by its power of Sakti, which is only itself.

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

7 hours ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

I've come up with this theory today..

 

Any part of samsara exists as long as we need it..

 

Or as long as we perceive we need it..

 

So it's the belief that we need certain illusions that propogates them?

 

Indeed, any model is a working model. You as the mirror, will unfailingly be provided what is considered as "needed" by the world-reflection. A conscious moment to moment mindfulness allows for the witnessing and/or elimination of "subconscious" thoughts/beliefs rising to the surface and creating one's experience. 

 

By addiction to this "co-creative" process however, one can lose sight of oneself, becoming blinded and lost in the epic magic of wearing the universe as one's suit. Beware of Maya!

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by neti neti

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Woah, so why do we want to get rid of Maya.. ?

 

Is it possible to become enlightened by instead mastering it?

[neti neti]

4 minutes ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

Woah, so why do we want to get rid of Maya.. ?

 

Is it possible to become enlightened by instead mastering it?

 

Maya is not to be gotten rid of, for Maya is all of that which does not, in a real sense, exist.

 

The prospect of becoming enlightened itself, is a play of Maya. Mastering Maya is a distraction, although being seduced into that distraction may very well be a means of discovering one was already the Master all along.

[3bob]

On 3/16/2018 at 8:21 PM, steve said:

 

What can leave the Self?

What can return?

 

studies and teachings  from the Upanishads go into this, the Chandogya is a very good one...  Btw, A.V. is  only one school of many  and it seems to grab a lot of attention! (while  I relate more to the teachings of the Saivite  schools, and certain ones more than others)

 

[Boundlesscostfairy]

It is the self that leaves.

 

It is also the self that is found again..

 

In pure awareness is this true..

 

Memory is one thing that leaves and comes back..

[silent thunder]

My Mother's Mind in this life... dissolved slowly until it was all but a vapor, that would manifest only slight variations of themes involving memories.  The forms of these memories could not hold shape for long, in conversation, or it seems in her inner landscape.

 

With her dissolving mind, along with the loss of cherished memories, many of her daily self imposed and created dramas and sufferings also evaporated.  It was an odd blessing/curse to witness.  On one hand, she lost her relationship with almost everyone she ever knew, except my Sister.  On the other, she also lost the hold of many of the old tapes and paradigm forms of her very painful childhood and adult life.  So aside from body aches and suffering, much of her mental suffering was no longer maintained as mind unfolded into pure being.

 

At the end of her life, I couldn't be near her, or even show up in pictures she viewed without it causing painful confusion for her.

 

I look so like my father did at my age, that she confused me with him, so my presence or images of me, her son, was a confusing and painful mixture of someone she knew she should be close to (her son) but couldn't clearly recall... and a slew of old pent up blockages of trauma involving her marriage to my Father, (whom I look exactly like as a grown man).

 

Such is the power and weakness of Maya in the Mind.  Projections that are as vividly real as any memory you cherish... and as utterly insubstantial and weak as fog in the piercing morning light.

 

Blessings and Curses abound...  Everything I love and all that I despise, come from one source... so where does the difference lie?

 

Any longer... I feel certain that there is awareness.  The rest... (poof)  (whoosh)  i just dunno...

[3bob]

without Akashic records of lives (for souls)  how would many lifetimes of wisdom be attained?  Btw, and going outside of Hindu/Vedic teachings one can read about the Historic Buddha and well known Buddhist Lamas or masters recounting  some of their various "lifetimes". 

Edited March 19, 2018 by 3bob

[Boundlesscostfairy]

So I want to know if anyone here is actually free from Samsara?

 

Or if you will.. with most penchance.. what % are you either knowledgeable or free from Samsara.. 

 

I believe im in the 80s range..

 

Frequency can be true in agency just in general..

[Jeff]

7 hours ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

So I want to know if anyone here is actually free from Samsara?

 

Or if you will.. with most penchance.. what % are you either knowledgeable or free from Samsara.. 

 

I believe im in the 80s range..

 

Frequency can be true in agency just in general..

 

Interesting concept. How did you decide on the 80’s? Also, to know a percentage like that it implies you know what 100% is as bar. What does 100% mean?

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Hmmm, your cusping on 100% for sure!

[3bob]

if there is a someone (here, there or anywhere) that thinks of themselves (or another) as a particular someone or of a certain "percentage" then.... 

Edited March 22, 2018 by 3bob

[silent thunder]

100%.

i am 100% certain there is awareness.

 

i am only certain i am aware. 

 

i no longer hold certainty anywhere else, and though I used to saturate in certainties everywhere I looked, in all topics I encountered... now...

 

Awareness systematically, methodically, ruthelssly and mercifully...  dissolves it away like fog in morning light.

 

how aware?

what kind of aware?

why i am aware?

 

i am 0% certain how, what, why.  don't even have much energy, interest... slowly losing energy for anything other than being content with simple being.

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Hmm, you can measure how healthy you..

 

Physically,

 

Mentally..

 

Measuring your chi.. and energy..

 

Psychologists ask how is your mood from 1-10..

 

And right now I'm getting a 6..

[neti neti]

I'm 100% certain, that that guy who thinks he is measuring, is 0% qualified. 

[neti neti]

Quote

"Self-attention is ever going on. It needs no effort.

 

Here the whole philosophy is based on the principle that people are not contented by attending to second or third persons, so vairāgya [freedom from desire to experience otherness] must be the base. One should know that attention to second or third persons brings misery.

When Bhagavan was asked, 'Why should we attend to the first person or ātman?' he replied, 'If you do not attend to the first person, you attend to second or third persons instead. If you do not do ātma-vicāra, you do anaātma-vicāra. Neither is necessary. To be is not doing, not attending'.

 

Until one comes to the conclusion that attending to second or third persons — or even to the first person — is ultimately unnecessary, one should attend to the first person. But if that is felt to be tiresome, be free from that also, and just be happy with your mere being." 

 

[Later Sadhu Om explained that this is like saying, 'If you do not like this coin with a head, you can have this one with a tail', knowing that both coins are one. Remaining with only our being is the state of attending to nothing other than self.]

 

~Sadhu Om

 

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

Quote

"There must be a first person to attend to second or third persons. Must not the first person exist before it can start to attend to any second or third person, and does it knοw that it is? After waking up from sleep as so-and-so, the first knowledge that comes to us is about our own existence. That itself is self-attention. Knowing that 'I am so-and-so' is knowledge of the first person.

 

How does this knowledge come? Only by attending to the first person. So attention to the first person is always going on, even while we are attending to second or third persons. Without attention to the first person, attention to second or third persons cannot occur. The knowledge of second or third persons indicates the presence of the first person. When the world is known, that shows that the first person is present. This is self-attention without effort.

 

A jñāni is always paying attention in this way. He is not actually paying attention, because he is self-attention. If he knows anything, he clearly knows, 'Because I am, these are known. Because I am, I hear this. Because I am, I smell this'. This 'I am' is a constant knowledge. This constant self-attention does not fade away when he seems to attend to second or third persons. This is the difference between a jñāni and an ajñāni. The ajñāni forgets that he is experiencing his being, whereas the jñāni does not forget this. He is fully aware of this 'I am'.

 

How can this awareness be there unless there is an attention? Since awareness and attention are one and the same, if we are aware that 'I am', we are attending to 'I am'. There will be no exertion in such self-attention, and there will be no forgetfulness of the first person even when attending to second or third persons. Can we actually forget self? No, we cannot. We cannot but knοw self.

In deep sleep our self-attention is without second or third persons. In sleep we do not need any outside indicators, any second or third persons, to knοw that 'I am'. Self-attention is ever present in sleep. Though second and third persons, the outer signs, are absent, we do not doubt whether or not 'I am'. Our being is our attention; our sat is our cit, our mere being is knowing.

Now we want to knοw, so we have to attend. Attending is a verb, but though 'I am' is also a verb, it is not an action, a kriya-rūpa, but is just being, a sat-rūpa. So in 'I am', in just being, there is no exertion and hence no tiredness. Self-attention is our svabhava, our very nature, not our doing, not our making effort. It is constant, even in sleep.

When we once discover that we are fully aware of our being in sleep, we will know that we will be fully aware of it in death and in pralaya (the dissolution of the universe). We alone are; nothing is ever destroyed."

 

~Sadhu Om

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

Quote

"The thinker is the first thought, the 'I'-thought. Who is thinking? The ego, the first person. This first person, the first thought, rises on waking from sleep. The knowledge of the first person is the first knowledge we get on waking from sleep. Therefore, self-attention is ever going on.

 

Until we knοw that, we have to make effort to attend to self, and after knowing it, we never have to worry about it or anything else.

Knowing self happens in a split second. It makes everything, the entire universe, dissolve.

Both light and darkness are necessary to make a film show. In the projector there is light, but the film has darker portions that prevent the light passing through. Only through the less dark portions does the light escape to the screen. If light alone were present, no film show would be seen. Likewise, if a uniformly dark film were present, nothing would be seen.

Therefore both light and darkness are essential. To make the show of this world, both vidyā [knowledge or self-awareness] and avidyā [ignorance or self-forgetfulness] are necessary.

 

But is it necessary to have this show?" ~Sadhu Om

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

Quote

"The perpetual wandering of our attention from one, second or third person to another, and to and fro between past and future, is like the swinging of a pendulum, whose central vertical axis is 'I am' or 'now'. Just as a swinging pendulum is never out of contact with its vertical axis, yet never rests there, our attention is never out of contact with its centre, 'I am' or 'now', yet never rests there. The state in which our attention rests in 'I am' and in 'now' is known as ātma-nistha or samādhi (which means sama-dhi: even, balanced, equipoised or equanimous mind), and is similar to a steadily resting pendulum.

Because our attention never rests, time never rests, and so the present moment is never truly experienced. Time is an incessant flow from past to future. If we try to know the truth of the present moment by attending to second and third persons, we would be like a man trying to step on the head of his own shadow (because second and third persons are experienced in the illusory flow of time and not in the precise present moment). 

 

If we try to measure something without knowing the value of a single unit of our measurement (whether that be dollars, kilos or whatever), we would not know the value of what we had measured. It is equally futile to try to know the truth of the past or future without knowing the true nature of the present, as Bhagavan says in verse 15 of Ulladu Narpadu:

'Past and future stand depending on the present. While occurring, they are both only the present. [Therefore] the present is the only one [time that actually exists]. [Hence] without knowing the truth of the present, trying to know the past or future is like trying to count without [knowing the value of the unit] one.'

 

The truth of the present is that it is non-existent. If we know that, then we can judge the true value of all other knowledge. The present place and time, the 'here' and 'now', is 'I am'.
No second or third person can truly exist in the here and now, because they are all objects known by the first person, which alone is 'here', and hence they occupy places other than 'here'. Second and third persons are subject to change, and hence to time, so they exist only in the constant flow of time from past to future, never stopping in the present.

 

Therefore they can never be experienced in the precise present moment, the 'now'. Hence, 'being in the here and now' can only mean being in self, which is our natural state of self-attention. The 'here and now' is not an object; it is the subject, 'I', and hence it can only be known by non-objective attention." ~Sadhu Om

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by neti neti

[neti neti]

Quote

"When Muruganar was once asked about other gurus, he replied, ‘I have been blinded by the sun, so I cannot see anything else'.

 

As Bhagavan explains in verses 17 and 18 of Ulladu Narpadu, an ajnani limits ‘I’ to the extent (the form) of the body, and limits reality to the extent of the world. As a result, ajnanis do not take ‘I’ and the reality to be one and the same.

 

The jnani, on the other hand, sees that ‘I’ shines as the limitless self and that reality shines as the formless substratum of the world, and therefore knows that the reality is ‘I’.

Because the jnani knows that self alone really exists, he does not see anything as non-self, and hence he knows that even the body is ‘I’ and even the world is real. However, we should take care not to misunderstand the jnani’s statement that the world is real. What the jnani sees as real is just the ‘is’-ness of the world.

 

Both a jnani and an ajnani will say, ‘This is a table’, but the ajnani sees only its form and therefore mistakes its ‘is’-ness to be a property of that form, whereas in the view of the jnani only ‘is’-ness [being or sat] is real, so the table is nothing other than that infinite, indivisible and hence formless ‘is’-ness.

Therefore, because the jnani experiences the body as ‘I’ and the world as real, he seems to behave just like ajnanis, but the difference between them lies in their understanding of ‘I’ and of reality. Though this difference in their perspectives is very subtle, it is actually vast, like the difference between a mountain top and a valley." ~Sri Sadhu Om

 

[steve]

On 3/21/2018 at 1:10 AM, Boundlesscostfairy said:

So I want to know if anyone here is actually free from Samsara?

 

Not me

[3bob]

in the meantime dharma,  instead of nihilism or other forms of harm to life-force.

Edited March 24, 2018 by 3bob

[neti neti]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

in the meantime dharma,  instead of nihilism or other forms of harm to life-force.

 

Renouncing the renouncer is the killer of all -isms.

 

When 'I' and 'mine' are abandoned one becomes the life-force, incapable of harming oneself. True dharma is ever-present. Being self is the greatest help, and the highest dharma.

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by neti neti