Two Different Nirvikalpa Samadhis

[Nahm]

@Shanmugam Well? Can you? 

[Shanmugam]

Just now, Nahm said:

@Shanmugam Well? Can you? 

Quote

Can you accept, that everything word you’ve ever said or written, every practice you’ve done, all of it, amounts to nothing? 

Yes...

[Nahm]

@Shanmugam Feels good doesn’t it? ?❤️

 

 

 

 

?

 

?❤️

[Deep]

On 3/21/2018 at 9:31 PM, Nahm said:

If there are not deeper consciousness states, then why do some enlightened people refer to / post the words of teachers, and ancient masters in their responses?  I mean, why wouldn’t they just say what comes to mind, since they are equally enlightened? They could simply reference their own previous experiences. 

It depends on how you choose to define enlightenment. If you say one has to experience deeper consciousness states to be considered enlightened, than no they aren't equally as enlightened. Some consciousness states can't be described with words. Our present experience can't be described with words either. For example, I can say I'm writing this but that's what I'm doing, not the totality of my experience.

On 3/23/2018 at 2:49 AM, Clown said:

My understanding of this is that realization of your true nature, enlightenment or awakening is "nothing special". People just get it mixed up with all sorts of heightened states you can get to by some yoga techniques, drugs or mantras etc. 

The opinions vary from person to person. In my opinion, it's necessary to experience something that helps us wake from the dream. It has to be dramatic enough that we completely dis-identify with the dream character. 

[Deep]

On 3/22/2018 at 6:32 PM, Shanmugam said:

Actually, I agree that there should not be a dependency to a guru. But people need guidance anyway. It doesn't have to be an infallible and the only guru's guidance. It is just a guidance that a person can get from other spiritual friends who are far ahead in the path. 

No, you can only be a guru if people consider you to be. You're a good writer, but it doesn't mean you are further on the path than we are. If you give unwanted advice, it's rude. You were accusing me of thinking that I am superior to others on this forum. Are you sure you're not just projecting your mindset onto me? I noticed you behaved rudely with another member on another thread. You should allow people to have their own opinions, even if they are wrong. If they're wrong they will figure it out on their own. They don't need you to tell them that. If you're so confident in what you know, maybe you can start a mega thread like Shanmugam's Guide to Enlightenment. There you can bombard people with your "wisdom". 

 

[Shanmugam]

19 minutes ago, Deep said:

No, you can only be a guru if people consider you to be. You're a good writer, but it doesn't mean you are further on the path than we are. If you give unwanted advice, it's rude. You were accusing me of thinking that I am superior to others on this forum. Are you sure you're not just projecting your mindset onto me? I noticed you behaved rudely with another member on another thread. You should allow people to have their own opinions, even if they are wrong. If they're wrong they will figure it out on their own. They don't need you to tell them that. If you're so confident in what you know, maybe you can start a mega thread like Shanmugam's Guide to Enlightenment. There you can bombard people with your "wisdom". 

 

Deep, I am not a guru...   

I am just pointing out your tendency to advice everyone and tell them what they should do, when you yourself haven't seriously considered walking on the spiritual path. I repeat, you only know what you read in some books... And you just told me what I should do. 

I don't need somebody else's certificate for my transformation. Whether someone believes in what I say or not, whether someone disagrees with me or not doesn't really matter. I am only interested in communicating the truth and I will be harsh if I think that it is really needed.

And I remind you what I said in another post: The first step in the spiritual path is realizing that you don't know. (remember, you might have read books and understood what is said there; that doesn't mean you know)... 

I was exactly like you when I was 10 years old. I had read everything about enlightenment that I can lay my hands on. I used to impress people by talking about ashtanga yoga and samadhi etc when I was only 10 years old... that was in 1993.And I was full of myself . But only in 2002, I realized that I knew nothing.. And only in 2014, there was actually a transformation.

Your argument sounds like a blindman arguing about colors with someone who is not blind. Once, I was a blind man too.. You are not realizing that you are arguing with a mask or a persona that is reflected in your mind..

[Shanmugam]

Dear @Deep I don't expect you to listen to me; but listen to Osho, will you? This is just a request from a friend..  . Here is an excerpt from one of the talks given by Osho. Read this slowly, open-mindedly and completely:

Excerpt from 'The Rebel' by Osho

Questioner: MASTER,

CAN WE HELP EACH OTHER? CAN I BE HELPFUL TO SOMEONE, CAN SOMEONE HELP ME?

IS BECOMING AFLAME THE ONLY WAY TO BE REALLY HELPFUL? PLEASE, THROW SOME LIGHT.

Osho:  Sarjano, the blind cannot help the blind. Those who are groping in darkness cannot lead others to light. Those who don't know immortality cannot help others to drop the fear of death. Those who are not living totally and intensely, whose song is not yet of the heart, whose smile is only a painted smile on the lips, cannot help others to be authentic and sincere. Those who are hypocrites, pretenders, cannot help others to be honest.

Those who are not yet themselves, know nothing about themselves, have no idea of their individuality, who are still lost in their personality which is fake and created by the society, cannot help anybody else to attain individuality. Even with all good intentions, it is simply not possible.

If your flame of life is not burning, how can you make the unlit lamps of others aflame? You have to be aflame, Sarjano; only then can you put others on fire.

This is what I mean by being a rebel: you have to be rebellious, then you can spread rebellion all around you. If you are on fire, aflame, you can create a wildfire which goes faraway beyond your vision. But first you have to be aflame.

The blind man leading another blind man... Kabir says both fall into the well. His original words are: ANDHA ANDHAM THELIA DONO KOOP PADANT. "The blind led the blind and both have fallen into the well."

You have to have eyes to lead the blind to a physician -- there is no other way. You can only share with others that which you have got: if you are miserable, you will share your misery. When two miserable persons are together the misery is not only doubled, it is multiplied. The same is true about your blissfulness, the same is true about your rebelliousness, the same is true about all experiences.

Whatever you want the world to be, you will have to be a model first. You have to pass through a fire test to prove your philosophy of life by your example. You cannot just go on arguing about it. Reasoning and argument will not help; only your experience can give to others the taste of love, of meditation, of silence, of rebelliousness, of religion.

Before you have experienced, never try to help anybody -- because you will simply mess up the other person more. They are messed up already. Centuries of heritage have been messing up everybody. It will be very kind of you not to help, because it is going to be dangerous; your help will be very risky for the other person.

First travel the path, know perfectly well where it leads -- only then can you hold the hands of others and take them on the path.

An American Jewish visitor in Russia says to his guide, "In America I can say that Ronald Reagan is an idiot and nothing would happen to me."

The guide says, "You can say that in Russia and they will give you a medal."

It is very difficult in this world to communicate. You have to learn how to communicate your experiences so that what reaches others is exactly what you want to say; otherwise you may be thinking of sharing nectar and it may turn into poison in their lives. They are poisoned enough already!

It is better to first cleanse yourself, make your eyes more transparent so that you can see better. Perhaps -- then too, perhaps -- you may be able to help others. The desire is good, but good does not happen just from good desires.

The ancient saying is that the way to hell is paved with good intentions. There are millions of people who are helping with good intentions, advising others -- not even bothering about the simple fact that they don't follow their own advice. But just the joy of advising is so much... who cares whether I follow my own advice or not?

The joy of advising others is a very subtle, egoistic joy. The person you are advising becomes ignorant; you become knowledgeable. Advice is the only thing in the world which everybody gives and nobody takes; and it is good that nobody takes it because it is given by people who know nothing -- although there is no bad intention behind it.

You are asking a very compassionate question -- but in the very nature of things, if you want to change the world, you have to change yourself first. The revolution must come to you first. Only then can you radiate it into others' hearts. First the dance must happen to you, and then you will see a miracle: that others have started dancing too.

The dance is catching; so is love, so is gratitude, so is religiousness, so is rebellion -- they are all contagious. But first you must have the flame that you want to see in others' eyes.

[abrakamowse]

1 hour ago, Deep said:

Some consciousness states can't be described with words. Our present experience can't be described with words either. For example, I can say I'm writing this but that's what I'm doing, not the totality of my experience.

But isn't that some idea or a thought of what we are? Isn't it supposed that I have to know the totality of my experience? Know what others are experiencing, etc? I can infer that from the texts and for the conclusions I arrive after reading about avatars, like Buddha, Jesus, Krshna, etc... but why when the knowledge that we are everything is clear, why can't be experience or know that everything? That's what I can't wrap my head around.

Edited March 24, 2018 by abrakamowse

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, Deep said:

It depends on how you choose to define enlightenment. If you say one has to experience deeper consciousness states to be considered enlightened, than no they aren't equally as enlightened. Some consciousness states can't be described with words. Our present experience can't be described with words either. For example, I can say I'm writing this but that's what I'm doing, not the totality of my experience.

I totally agree. I don’t recall saying one needs experience deeper states to be enlightened, just that there are deeper states - while Nahm is illusion, experience is infinite.  The issue with the enlightenment claim is inherent. 

@Shanmugam Very interesting. Who’s this “Osho” guy? It is like the boy who goes and gets his dad when confronted by another boy. Wise dad though. 

@abrakamowse That is a top notch question. When you experience directly, the You, then that answer is clear. When you’ve seen to the absolute, the Being, then you’ve seen through all of yourself. Then, you have also seen through everyone else. 

[Shanmugam]

@Nahm ... I know @Deep is not ready to listen to what I am saying.. He is actually focused on giving me and everyone else some advice... So I am just quoting another man who taught me; probably, he will listen to him.... 

[Faceless]

1 hour ago, abrakamowse said:

but why when the knowledge that we are everything is clear, why can't be experience or know that everything? That's what I can't wrap my head around.

 

Knowledge ‘knowing’ and experience is a part of the whole, or born of the whole ‘the infinite’ 

A Part or fragment of the whole ‘thought’ cannot grasp the totality of the whole. There would have to be complete knowledge of everything or the whole to capture that. And that is an impossibility. Thought is finite. The whole is infinite. 

It’s assumed that absolute truth can be known, captured by thought ‘a perceiver’

Thought is fragmented and never whole. The perceiver being a fragment of thought divides thought even more as thought is in movement. Thought narrows down and is specialized in its nature. It seperates/excludes other parts and focuses on particular parts. Specializations in different fields of thought are examples of that. 

We have to remember thought being fragmented creates the thinker and anything that the thinker concludes leads to further fragmentation and continues to multiply itself and becomes more and more narrow and partial. 

Although some may not know what I’m talking about, this post is more an attempt to point one in the direction to investigate themselves. To understand our own limitations of thinking makes for a better application thought all together, and gives one a capacity to put thought in its right place. After all puting things in there right place is an art. Then we can use thought skillfully and avoid/prevent distortion and thought can function with order. 

@abrakamowse 

after you learn about these limits then you can proceed and ask the question of is there a way to be in harmony with that which is whole. After learning these limits your approach will be less likely to fall into illusion and deception. You will know if you have hit a road block and will won’t persist in the wrong direction for decades and decades without actually ever embodying this action of wholeness. 

You will be fine if you are careful friend?

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Faceless

[Deep]

2 hours ago, Shanmugam said:

Deep, I am not a guru...   

I am just pointing out your tendency to advice everyone and tell them what they should do, when you yourself haven't seriously considered walking on the spiritual path. I repeat, you only know what you read in some books... And you just told me what I should do. 

How many times do I have to tell you? I am SERIOUSLY walking the spiritual path. I practice Yoga 24/7. I never said anyone has to do what I'm doing. 

2 hours ago, Shanmugam said:

I used to impress people by talking about ashtanga yoga and samadhi etc when I was only 10 years old... that was in 1993.And I was full of myself . But only in 2002, I realized that I knew nothing.. And only in 2014, there was actually a transformation.

I'm didn't talk about Ashtanga yoga to impress people. I talked about it because it's genuine information. People can learn about it on their own. If they disagree with what I say, they can ignore it. They can think for themselves. 

Your implying I shouldn't talk about anything if I'm not enlightened myself. Then what should I do? Should I ask newbie questions all the time? 

[Shanmugam]

Quote

How many times do I have to tell you? I am SERIOUSLY walking the spiritual path. I practice Yoga 24/7. I never said anyone has to do what I'm doing. 

 Your reply changes every time.. do you notice it?

First you said:  I'm not really seeking enlightenment. I'm just messing around because I have a lot of free time 

The second time you said: I'm seeking enlightenment, but I'm not desperate for it.

And now, you are saying:  I am SERIOUSLY walking the spiritual path. I practice Yoga 24/7.

This is the first time you are saying that you are seriously walking on the spiritual path. 

Quote

I'm didn't talk about Ashtanga yoga to impress people. I talked about it because it's genuine information. People can learn about it on their own. If they disagree with what I say, they can ignore it. They can think for themselves. 

I was talking about how I was when I was 10 years old. The underlying message here is, you are not conscious of the sub-conscious tendencies of your mind. I can see what level your are at more clearly that how you yourself can see it..Because, I have been on the same road and I have traveled the same road that you are travelling now. There are many things which you can only realize at later point of time, as you progress more in the path. 

Deep, you have a conceptual understanding of what enlightenment is and you are trying to fit me into your own understanding of enlightenment... I can see this very clearly. But you don't... I can't prove it to you. The only thing that I can suggest is to have some humility... 

Quote

Your implying I shouldn't talk about anything if I'm not enlightened myself. Then what should I do? Should I ask newbie questions all the time? 

Did you read the excerpt from Osho's talks? What message did you get from that?

Edited March 24, 2018 by Shanmugam

[Deep]

47 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

And now, you are saying:  I am SERIOUSLY walking the spiritual path. I practice Yoga 24/7.

This is the first time you are saying that you are seriously walking on the spiritual path. 

No, it's not the first time. I said it before in another thread, but I can't find that. 

58 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

The only thing that I can suggest is to have some humility... 

Okay I'll be more humble. 

[Shanmugam]

1 minute ago, Deep said:

No, it's not the first time. I said it before in another thread, but I can't find that. 

Okay I'll be more humble. 

ok good

So, are you learning from a guru? What practices are you doing? And what books have you been reading?

[Nahm]

5 hours ago, Faceless said:

Knowledge ‘knowing’ and experience is a part of the whole, or born of the whole ‘the infinite’ 

A Part or fragment of the whole ‘thought’ cannot grasp the totality of the whole. There would have to be complete knowledge of everything or the whole to capture that. And that is an impossibility. Thought is finite. The whole is infinite. 

It’s assumed that absolute truth can be known, captured by thought ‘a perceiver’

Thought is fragmented and never whole. The perceiver being a fragment of thought divides thought even more as thought is in movement. Thought narrows down and is specialized in its nature. It seperates/excludes other parts and focuses on particular parts. Specializations in different fields of thought are examples of that. 

We have to remember thought being fragmented creates the thinker and anything that the thinker concludes leads to further fragmentation and continues to multiply itself and becomes more and more narrow and partial. 

Although some may not know what I’m talking about, this post is more an attempt to point one in the direction to investigate themselves. To understand our own limitations of thinking makes for a better application thought all together, and gives one a capacity to put thought in its right place. After all puting things in there right place is an art. Then we can use thought skillfully and avoid/prevent distortion and thought can function with order. 

@abrakamowse 

after you learn about these limits then you can proceed and ask the question of is there a way to be in harmony with that which is whole. After learning these limits your approach will be less likely to fall into illusion and deception. You will know if you have hit a road block and will won’t persist in the wrong direction for decades and decades without actually ever embodying this action of wholeness. 

You will be fine if you are careful friend?

 

 

 

The whole is what you are, the knowledge is earth / human level, illusory, meaningless stuff.  This is why those who experience Being laugh about the realization that there is nothing to know. Once you actually know what you are, it is clear there is nothing to know. You can grasp the totality of the whole reality, you are it right now. The absolute is not captured by thought, it is what you actually are in reality. The “perceiver” (as you’ve used it)  is not a fragment, it is the Being. You could experience this yourself. The absolute, as in only Being, is so far removed from thought, thinking, fragments, etc etc, using the term light years away doesn’t even begin to describe. It’s like light dimensions away (still fails to actually describe). It’s so far removed from your current understanding, that it actually, literally could not be communicated to you, which is painfully ironic because you are it now. You are suggesting people investigate themselves without understanding there is only you, and you are not conscious that it is you who desires to investigate yourself. Does that make sense to you? It seems you’ve got the disidentification with thought down solid man.  Are you going to proceed into awareness, consciousness, or settle in the small pond? It is the most worthwhile investigation possible, but you’d have to let go of being “right”, and of “knowing”, otherwise there is no breakthrough. Forgive me if I am wrong, but my intuition tells me this level of seeing would serve you very well in a few of “life’s problems” you are encountering.

[Faceless]

16 hours ago, Nahm said:

The whole is what you are, the knowledge is earth / human level, illusory, meaningless stuff.  This is why those who experience Being laugh about the realization that there is nothing to know. Once you actually know what you are, it is clear there is nothing to know. You can grasp the totality of the whole reality, you are it right now. The absolute is not captured by thought, it is what you actually are in reality. The “perceiver” (as you’ve used it)  is not a fragment, it is the Being. You could experience this yourself. The absolute, as in only Being, is so far removed from thought, thinking, fragments, etc etc, using the term light years away doesn’t even begin to describe. It’s like light dimensions away (still fails to actually describe). It’s so far removed from your current understanding, that it actually, literally could not be communicated to you, which is painfully ironic because you are it now. You are suggesting people investigate themselves without understanding there is only you, and you are not conscious that it is you who desires to investigate yourself. Does that make sense to you? It seems you’ve got the disidentification with thought down solid man.  Are you going to proceed into awareness, consciousness, or settle in the small pond? It is the most worthwhile investigation possible, but you’d have to let go of being “right”, and of “knowing”, otherwise there is no breakthrough. Forgive me if I am wrong, but my intuition tells me this level of seeing would serve you very well in a few of “life’s problems” you are encountering.

Its easy to say you are the whole if you read that somewhere and it is second hand knowledge. But to people that don’t understand thinking they wouldn’t even question that they could possibly be deceiving themselves. Whether one sees them selves as the whole depends on what perceptions they have had. Which they can only have when the movement of thought has quieted down to the point that perception/insight ‘intelligence’ can manifest. 

If thought is in operation ‘the perceiver’ or ‘the known’ then the knower will inevitably see through it’s conditioned accumulated content of memory/knowledge and there will be no space for perception/insight to occur. 

Now when you read these posts I advise people to investigate themselves as in investigate themselves in relation to learning the nature of thought/thinking. For me to tell them ‘you are it’ would be telling them to believe the ‘idea’ that the are the whole. But to embody and live that actually demands that it’s not seen as an idea but as a fact. It’s easy to say your the whole, but to one who doesn’t embody that it’s merely another myth or conceptualization and product of thought. Thought is very tricky and unless you don’t understand its movement you can not navigate the illusions and deception. 

I am just presenting people with a way to go into this themselves without adding to the content of the minds. It is not somthing I would ever impose on another that they are truth, because unless they live as truth they are not.  That is somthing they should come to on there own. I am trying to show how not being influenced by all this non duality knowledge and just learning the nature of thinking ‘duality’ will help one go beyond the common barriers of never embodying the beauty of a centerless exsistence. After all you can not know non duality, but you can know duality. 

It’s easy to see where one is in there comments and statments. The extent that they quote non duality and promote seeking ‘psychological time’...Saying they are god and then by those very comments and recommendations of seeking experience, and higher levels of consciousness implies that there has not been embodiment at all. We can say all the non dual ‘jive’ we want but it’s easy to tell when one sees it as an idea and one who actully lives it with there whole being. To live it is truth. In that case you don’t know truth you are truth. The action of truth is expressed in being. 

I see that all this knowledge ‘answers passed down through time’ creates the very demand for questions. Psychologically I have no questions/problems whatsoever ever. I am free from questions as I don’t depend on them to maintain psychological security. 

Again I only point people in the direction so that they can avoid common illusions. I don’t presume to add to there beliefs. Saying to someone you are it means absolutely nothing to one who hasn’t even seen the simple fact that any experience they have is the result of memory, knowledge. ‘The known’ or ‘the past’ 

Do you see?? I am not going to add shit to people’s minds that they have to believe. If they can’t troubleshoot there own thought movements then they will never embody any of this. They will be full of knowledge of about wholeness but will never express it in action in there daily lives. And they will never live life free of illusions and will be stuck in the prepetual movement of psychological time... That is the difference between an intellectual and one who is holy. The intellectual ‘knows’ truth through the veil of thought ‘memory, knowledge and experience’ ...The holy man/woman is truth in action  

Do you see the difference?? 

How they live there life expresses itself very clearly. 

 I am well aware that harmony already exsistence and that we are the whole happening ?

To live life free of a center is truth in action. Do you intelliectualize about it?

Or do you embody this actully? 

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Faceless

[abrakamowse]

7 hours ago, Nahm said:

@abrakamowse That is a top notch question. When you experience directly, the You, then that answer is clear. When you’ve seen to the absolute, the Being, then you’ve seen through all of yourself. Then, you have also seen through everyone else. 

Thanks @Nahm I think I am trying too much to have that experience. I need more patience. Thanks again.

[abrakamowse]

@Faceless Thanks a lot for that comment! Very clear explanation. I think I know the response, but the problem is ego doesn't want to accept it.

I heard also Alan Watts saying that our consciousness is like the whole focusing on one point and that little point is our consciousness. 

He gave an example when he goes to a place and see people, he doesn't notice everything. But, he saw everything, he perceived everything. And probably deep inside him he can know for example, what color of T-Shirt was one of the person wearing. He put that as an example.

 

Thanks!

[Faceless]

23 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

I heard also Alan Watts saying that our consciousness is like the whole focusing on one point and that little point is our consciousness. 

Yeah the ego.. ‘every point of a sphere can be considered the center. That point on the Sphere has its own specific point of reference. I see that we are the whole looking at itself to. I just would not present that to one who is doing self inquiry. Just don’t want to promote and introduce thought induced projections to the person I am sharing with. I think people should see that for themselves. 

Allan watts is the man ?

Great communicator. 

 

Although I never learned much from others I would say that listening/reading Allan watts is a great way to enter into understand different points of view.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Faceless