|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wigswest
USA
115 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 12:26:33 AM
|
| Hey SeySorciere, I've had some input like that... I tend to think of it as my higher self :) |
 |
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 01:31:50 AM
|
Yes, god manifests in thousands of different ways. This is the kind of thing that gets religions fighting with each other. People have such a profound experience that they know it is God. But then they make the mistake of thinking their experience is valid and other people's experience couldn't be because it is different than theirs.
It doesn't usually happen like in the story books where a deep voice says "I am God and you must do this. . ."
I think what happens is God manifests in ways that can't be described in words, then our minds try to put it in words, and build a story around it. Those stories are built from our individual imagination, so each one is different. So in some ways they are all true, and in other ways they are all false. That is because we have gotten close to that which cannot be expressed in words. Thousands of words can surround this thing and hint at it, but never really get to the core.
Like blind people talking about colors. |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 02:56:55 AM
|
cosmic, it wasn't him driving... it was God!  |
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 09:19:13 AM
|
I've had what might be called "whispers", or a still small voice speaking to me in meditation very briefly, and it seemed to me like it was my conscience speaking, if that makes sense. But in terms of is this God or not, what is God? I am not convinced by these experiences to my satisfaction - i cannot answer that question.
I believe there is truth to the idea that "God" is looking through our eyes. But this view strikes me as incomplete since there is clearly a difference, whether you concede it or not, between this "God" and you, and me. You can't state absolutes in a relative universe or a universe and existence we percieve with our minds, which perhaps chops up the absolute.
The experience of pure bliss consciousness, if it exists, as a samadhi (one of many different types apparently) should furnish a perception or experience of "God" but which is impossible to describe or put into words, since it is an experience beyond the mind. People may describe these samadhis as "God" but if there is no mind to percieve anything in those states i cannot bring myself to accept the contention that it is God. You could call it anything if you wanted to, but to call it God seems a bit silly to me. Let's be clear: when we speak of God we are talking about an entity of some kind, some kind of personal being behind the intelligence of everything. There are numerous problems with this conception. IE "God" is just a vague word in the main.
So for me, it comes down to the potential existence of God as being something that can only exist with relation to the mind. If you take the mind out of it, what is left? I haven't heard a satisfactory answer to this question ever, anywhere.
Current western spiritual paradigms seem to have a consensus of belief that the soul is consciousness which in turn is the mind. It's one thing to say you experience lights and sounds, body movements, automatic mudras and bandhas, and other psychic experiences, and to relate these to "God" but all of these things oocur as perceptions in the mind and they cannot, as far as i can see, occur independenly from the mind. Therefore, as far as a "soul" goes it seems ridiculous to posit any experience of such a thing. It would make more sense to me to think of matter and energy as a soul and human bodies and minds inside THAT, like fish in water. Or our minds are like radios that pick up the broadcast of the soul of the universe. The point i am trying to make is that it makes no sense to talk about something akin to an experience or perception a person can have independently from the mind.
People on this website sometimes talk about feelings as experiences that are not of the mind. It's rather like saying that if you hold your breath your mind will disappear and you will stop thinking. I've tried it, anyone can try it now, and find out how ridiculous that idea is. Likewise, when the breath slows down and pauses in meditation, your thoughts don't stop. But pointing this out doesn't seem to stop people from making bizarre statements about no-mind.
First of all, how can you know you have no thoughts unless you THINK you do? You may say your mind chatter is gone and this is a thought-free state. Wrong. We think not only with words but also with pictures, and we can think abstractly too. In fact, we never stop thinking ever, since the mind is perpetually sorting through memory thoughts.
It isn't satisfying enough to tell me, "meditate and your questions will be answered automatically" NO!!! I have meditated, many many times. I am bringing up this subject of no-thought states for a REASON. Answer the question, "how can you know you have no thoughts unless you THINK you do?" It takes thinking to know something, so in what way can you reflect upon the experience of "no-thought" unless it takes thought to do it?
Daydreaming is also not a state of no-thought. It is thoughts entirely.
I am not saying it is impossible to experience a no-thought state - i just haven't seen or read any evidence (or experienced) of any such thing.
Back to God. What is God? There's a million and one answers to this question depending upon who you ask. There is certainly "something", i don't doubt that. But why call it "God"? God is a loaded word that doesn't help us understanding ANYTHING!
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 09:48:26 AM
|
The word "God" helps a lot of people understand. It provides a "handle" for them to generate bhakti. Bhakti is one of the most important ingredients for enlightenment. It is not necessary to use that word however. What is necessary is to generate bhakti.
The other important ingredient is consistent meditation without expectations. That part is tricky. How can you generate bhakti without using expectations? It's a quantum leap.
I'm sure you know you have answered your own questions above.
Here are a couple very insightful quotes snipped from the above:
"You can't state absolutes in a relative universe or a universe and existence we percieve with our minds, which perhaps chops up the absolute. "
"The experience of pure bliss consciousness, if it exists, as a samadhi (one of many different types apparently) should furnish a perception or experience of "God" but which is impossible to describe or put into words, since it is an experience beyond the mind. "
------------------------
I think these are very good statements. When you continually ask for proof, or help in understanding, the above statements of yours answer your own questions!
meditate on..... |
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 10:56:46 AM
|
Don't know what happened there. I was typing a response and the page clicked off and i lost it.
Anyway, funny that i answer my own questions. All i wanted to say was that i don't understand how a person can know anything unless there is a mind there to perceive it.
On a different note, i don't see the necessity of using a mantra so long as conscious awareness can be maintained to prevent the onset of sleep. Since the mantra becomes "fuzzy", so do all other thoughts. Granted, it is useful as a tool to remain consistently conscious without falling into sleep, but i believe you simply just need to stay awake, and anything can do that for you, from the breath to a visualisation to any other thought.
The interesting thing for me, with relation to your comment about bhakti, Etherfish, is that i feel i would be doing myself a favor if i channelled my devotional thoughts and feelings to God like a prayer or internal dialogue rather than use a mechanical mantra just to stay awake. You bring up the point about expectations, which again makes no sense to me really. People seem to have spiritual experiences whether they have expectations or not. The only advantage i can see to having no expectations is to prevent frustrations from surfacing when the corresponding experiences aren't there. However, i feel this frustration can simply be mentally redirected or overcome with a change of mind and need not be dwelt on in between meditation sessions.
Or, to put it another way, watching the mind, whether you use a mantra or not, calms it down eventually anyway. I would rather spend the time meditating with my thoughts on God, watching the other thoughts pop up and ignoring them until the body has the neccesary sufficient relaxation to physiologically imitate the state of meditation.
As far as spiritual experiences go, whether we like it or not i think that a consensus is emerging which suggests that our beliefs play a huge role in obtaining them. This could be confused with self-hypnosis, which is a shame. However, it's pretty well known that what we focus on we attract. FOcus on an out of body experience, with intent, and the likelyhood of having one is hugely greater. Or concentrate on God, etc etc. So long as the corresponding experience is truly superconscious or psychic, and not an hallucination, via use of our internal discrimination (backed up by external evidence if needed), i see no reason to disregard belief.
Likewise, with bhakti it is the strength of feeling that assures success, and this kind of one pointed concentration on God is said to be a legitimate spiritual path. Look at Ramakrishna, for example. THe point being, God is the goal, God is the desire - if you want God then you don't necessarily want anything else. No other desires. In this there IS expectation, and it is entirely valid to have it. |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 12:57:00 PM
|
Gumpi wrote:
"i don't understand how a person can know anything unless there is a mind there to perceive it."
That is something the mind can never understand. But it can be experienced.
"i don't see the necessity of using a mantra so long as conscious awareness can be maintained to prevent the onset of sleep."
The mantra occupies the mind and helps get rid of thoughts. You don't have ot use it though.
It greatly speeds up the effects of meditation for most people, but many people don't use it.
Constant prayer in meditation can be used also. not internal dialog though, that will get nowhere.
The problem with expectations is twofold.
One, they limit the possible outcome. Meditation can produce many things you don't expect. So if you're busy expecting you are forcing rather than accepting.
Secondly, expectation produces frustration because it limits the time. If your highest ideal is to find God (there are many other ideals), and you can continue to meditate after years of not finding God, then you are better than most people. But if you meditate with no expectations, you get many small rewards you didn't know about, and it gives you incentives to continue.
|
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 1:37:51 PM
|
Etherfish,
I appreciate what you have written but i don't feel you understood what i wrote before in its entirety.
Some people obviously need a mantra because it staves off thoughts. There are various reasons for this. I don't need it. I watch the thoughts too, as others probably do with the mantra anyway. Eventually, if the theory is true, the thoughts should settle down by themselves. I have never experienced that.
About frustration with regard to expectations, i was very lucid in what i wrote earlier.
Meditating for no rewards isn't even an issue. Nobody does anything they get nothing from. Meditation produces nice feelings of relaxation regardless of any spiritual experiences, hence it is worth doing anyway. So you either discipline yourself and meditate regularly per the instructions or you don't, right? Not quite. You don't need to meditate regularly to have experienced meditation. It just helps. I have meditated regularly also. It was different to normal experience in the sense that only i had more deja vu in ordinary eyes-open conscious awake life. I do not actually even need deja vu all the time. I think it would disturb my attention. |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 3:04:14 PM
|
| isnt gettin rid of thoughts an expectation? no future no worry no concern; just be present |
|
|
|
gumpi
United Kingdom
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 4:01:24 PM
|
Who said anything about expecting to get rid of thoughts? I didn't. I merely talked about a supposedly real experience named "samadhi" or aka "thought-free state", and how this makes no sense.
If your objective is to eliminate thought, and you know that beforehand, then you can't not expect to eliminate thought by meditating. And so that will probably be your experience, which i deem to be self-hypnosis. Lots of people meditate and they do not experience an abstract thought free awareness.
It's all very well to say things like, "be in the now" or "be present in the now" or "be present", but this kind of talk does not make any logical sense. Logic, which is a reasoning process, has a linear basis. You need the past, the present, and the future for logic and reasoning to have any understandable basis. It is also known as "memory". And without memory, you are either a) present without knowing it or b) present and knowing it, knowing the past, and anticipating the future.
A different kind of memory to this does not exist, neither can you prove it does, and i think it is silly, to be quite honest, to make up alternatives. |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 4:36:08 PM
|
"Lots of people meditate and they do not experience an abstract thought free awareness. "
Where do you get this information? This is not true.
|
|
|
|
SeySorciere
Seychelles
1553 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 11:44:22 AM
|
| One does experience the "abstract thought-free Awareness". It can happen during meditation and during your daily activities. As for "God" (or that Awareness) looking out of your eyes, when I experienced it, I called it as what Yogani calls it "rise of the Silent Witness". Totally aware. Watching yourself with a detached curiosity. I think this is what one would also call Being in the present moment. It is a fleeting thing though (for me for now)because the moment you realise it, you start thinking about it and it's gone. |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 12:47:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi
It's all very well to say things like, "be in the now" or "be present in the now" or "be present", but this kind of talk does not make any logical sense. Logic, which is a reasoning process, has a linear basis. You need the past, the present, and the future for logic and reasoning to have any understandable basis. It is also known as "memory". And without memory, you are either a) present without knowing it or b) present and knowing it, knowing the past, and anticipating the future.
Logic is not important here. This is not a matter of objective proof. Simply give up concern for the past. Give up concern for the future. Give up concern about what's happening now. Yes, thoughts will come up. Just don't get involved in them. Let them go.
In short, don't fixate. Don't identify. Let the mind rest.
Adamant |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 1:03:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
would rigpa qualify as God or not?
Neither yes nor no. Rigpa is one's own nondual condition as potentiality, energy and unimpededness. This is a sudden and continuous awareness with no room for analysis.
Adamant |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 1:34:13 PM
|
Well honestly, that sounds better than God.
Maybe people should try to find rigpa. |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 2:12:41 PM
|
Gumpi wrote:
"Some people obviously need a mantra because it staves off thoughts. There are various reasons for this. I don't need it. I watch the thoughts too, as others probably do with the mantra anyway. Eventually, if the theory is true, the thoughts should settle down by themselves. I have never experienced that."
Let me see if I understand - You don't need a mantra because it staves off thoughts, and you have found a better way to do that. But your way has never been successful. Hmmm - maybe you should try the mantra? |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 3:44:04 PM
|
Gumpi! Pay attention! Any form can manifest in your mind, like a mirror. That which is neither outer nor inner appears inner, like an appearance within a glass ball laying on cloth. That which appears external radiates from within, like a prism, and the single clear light becomes anything at all.
Adamant |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 4:53:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi
First of all, how can you know you have no thoughts unless you THINK you do? You may say your mind chatter is gone and this is a thought-free state. Wrong. We think not only with words but also with pictures, and we can think abstractly too. In fact, we never stop thinking ever, since the mind is perpetually sorting through memory thoughts.
It isn't satisfying enough to tell me, "meditate and your questions will be answered automatically" NO!!! I have meditated, many many times. I am bringing up this subject of no-thought states for a REASON. Answer the question, "how can you know you have no thoughts unless you THINK you do?" It takes thinking to know something, so in what way can you reflect upon the experience of "no-thought" unless it takes thought to do it?
I am not saying it is impossible to experience a no-thought state - i just haven't seen or read any evidence (or experienced) of any such thing.
Back to God. What is God? There's a million and one answers to this question depending upon who you ask. There is certainly "something", i don't doubt that. But why call it "God"? God is a loaded word that doesn't help us understanding ANYTHING!
Dear Gumpi
This is an excellent question. Its answer is what Nisargadatta is always pointing to. The thought-free state cannot be known, except by implication. For example, a period of meditation, proved by the clock, which cannot be accounted for, even by sleep.
This is what provides insight to the ultimate state, which you are, have always been and always will be, the substratum of the Gumpi-story, which arises and then vanishes we know not how.
You cannot possess/know your real nature. This is why Nisargadatta much of the time declines to make much use of, still less to enshrine, concepts such as bliss or emptiness or clear light or anything else as a descriptor of what the devotee is seeking.
There is nothing wrong with such concepts in their own practice contexts, it is just that Nisargadatta's approach, like that of Zen at its best, is to 'cut to the chase', to point directly. THAT is all he will offer as a positive descriptor, which gets you nowhere, it keeps the question and search open.
Bliss, emptiness, light, mind, enlightenment, God, all will mislead when taken out of a particular practice context, where they are used as skilfull means to get you to the edge.
Any concept, anything that could be thought, is misleading, as if there is some-thing, however subtle, which you can know and enjoy, or ultimately BE. It is not so.
Your question is spot on. Your refusal to accept any answer to it is exactly right, and is your answer.
You are right about the word 'God' too, but I suggest you extend such scepticism to encompass words like 'self', 'mind' and 'person' too. Look deeply. There is no-thing there, not even nothingness. There is only an unanswerable question. This can only be accepted when we no longer wish to possess and be possessed. Until then we will be fascinated by the search and the words and the scriptures and the practices.
What then can be said about all THIS? Nothing. Babble.
Hence the premium on silence in all traditions.
chinna |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 5:07:11 PM
|
The 'advaita for yogis post' on the jnana forum at the moment, the dialogue signposted, and the new website for Robert Adams/Ed Muzika which can be reached by following the links, echo Gumpi's excellent question and THAT to which it points.....
chinna |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 5:37:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
[quote]Originally posted by gumpi
You cannot possess/know your real nature.
Except for THAT knowledge.
Adamant |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 5:46:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
[quote]Originally posted by gumpi
You cannot possess/know your real nature.
Except for THAT knowledge.
Adamant
I even want to rub out that word 'knowledge'. It's just the path, the gate, which proves to be a gateless gate....
|
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 5:52:32 PM
|
forget about God, and worry about rigpa
From buddist point of view, God (mahabrahma) is just another being trapped in samsara. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Dec 06 2009 6:17:04 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 6:50:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
[quote]Originally posted by gumpi
You cannot possess/know your real nature.
Except for THAT knowledge.
Adamant
I even want to rub out that word 'knowledge'. It's just the path, the gate, which proves to be a gateless gate....
THAT is immutable.
|
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 06 2009 7:25:56 PM |
|
|
|
brother neil
USA
752 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 7:23:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi
I am not saying it is impossible to experience a no-thought state - i just haven't seen or read any evidence (or experienced) of any such thing.
of course you will not read evidence that you think is satisfactory Gumpi, so why not stop thinking about it?
brother Neil
|
|
|
|
brother neil
USA
752 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 7:46:23 PM
|
Gumpi, a thought maybe you have worked on this one before.
can action happen without thought? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Have you had direct contact with God?
