Bindi

Bud, I don't relate to your non-critical no-mind philosophy at all, TBH I would prefer to be shot in the head than to submit to it, I think you can count me as a lost cause for conversion.

I have found this thread to be quite useful, as it has led me to confirm to my satisfaction that the work that is necessary to be done to advance on the spiritual path cannot be done in the state of nirvikalpa samadhi. Whether I have experienced this particular state or not may be entirely irrelevant to my goals, and I choose to concur with Ramana on this - that it is in fact unnecessary, no matter how exalted or how mysterious or how ineffable and unutterable this state may be.

I can try. In my experience, dreams are primarily concerned with disentangling the mind from all unreality with their often merciless truth, to me they are a perfect mirror of our emotional dysfunction and false ego self, and in various ways a perfect guide towards the ‘ocean’. If there is a disparity between my conscious thought and a dream, I accept the dream’s version to be more real (as long as it has been correctly interpreted), and work to align my thinking with the dream’s version of reality. If I ignore the dream's version of reality, then my mind makes the decision to accept my false ego self's version of reality. I currently believe that dreams are actually formed in Ajna chakra, and are like small packets of information from this source which has always remained connected to the ‘ocean’. I see the seeming distortion of dreams as being the distance the dream message has to travel between Ajna and our conscious mind’s ability to comprehend the message. When this distance is lessened by our conscious mind/consciousness moving towards Ajna’s way of seeing, dreams tend to become less distorted because the conscious mind and its ability to perceive actual reality has been correctly cultivated. Also as this distance lessens, Ajna can start to communicate knowledge and actual reality directly when awake. So basically what I’m saying is that it is the conscious mind’s wrong thinking and subsequent distortion that causes the problem with dreams, not the dream’s problem, so ‘dream-like’ is a misnomer, as ‘dream-like’ can more truthfully refer to actual reality.

Personally I would prefer to blame neo-advaitan teaching rather than belief in souls.

I remember coming across the ability to play with size perception in school at around 10 years old, and I actually cultivated this distortion of perception to relieve the boredom I felt in class. When I was 12 I had a dream of a catatonic ‘crazy’ old man and woke up to hear the words ‘he is me’. In terms of shattering my simple conscious concept of reality this was a cracker, it ripped apart any simple certainty I had about who I was, and forced me to start questioning this level of reality. After that dream I couldn’t help but start to subconsciously identify with this other me, and it left me grappling with concepts that were overwhelming at the time and pretty much ruined my ability to live a normal life. So, it was an actual dream that introduced me to the concept that my sense of who I was in this world was limited and unreal. And I would likely argue from this dream and other useful dreams since that dreams are a truer version of reality than my waking perceptions. I certainly agree that our perceptions and conscious thought are limited, but to my way of thinking it is insulting to the value of dreams to call unreality dream-like in a pejorative sense.

When I came across Sri Chinmoy’s description of nirvikalpa samadhi, what he described basically sounded like an unnecessary waste of time to me, therefore the title of this thread. My assumption was that he had indeed experienced nirvikalpa samadhi, but if he hadn’t then of course my initial conclusion will be incorrect. From your understanding, is his experience and Ramakrishna’s not nirvikalpa samadhi? Could you point me to a description of nirvikalpa Samadhi from a trustworthy text, if a genuine description exists. Maybe this term, like many spiritual terms, is bandied about by people who believe they have attained something but have no idea of the reality of the term. I would accept that as a reality, I see it happen to many terms and concepts, but I would like some baseline from which to be able to judge these things, as I have never experienced anything approximating this state myself.

I think in the state of nirvikalpa samadhi Ramakrishna who gave this analogy did feel utterly dissolved and not able to be reconstituted. He says "I was for six months in that state of Nirvikalpa from which ordinary mortals cannot return." In the salt doll analogy he says "Then who was to come back and tell the ocean's depth?" His experience of nirvikalpa samadhi seems to be equivalent to your concept of sahaja samadhi, as he states "It (the salt doll) became entirely one with the water of the ocean" in reference to nirvikalpa samadhi and you state "knowing you are the entire ocean" in reference to sahaja samadhi. When a cup of sea water is removed from the ocean and left in the sun, after a while the water will evaporate off and there will be only salt left in the cup, which can be re-fashioned into a salt doll.

Gee, we really don't see eye to eye, I would have chosen that one as one of the worst. It doesn’t seem to capture the spirit of samadhi well at all, for a start he creates a distinction between nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja samadhi which by all accounts doesn’t actually exist, as the two states are considered to be equivalent apart from the impermanency of nirvikalpa samadhi. And secondly he creates a building in which to posit these two distinct levels. Isn’t samadhi about dissolving?

Ramakrishna’s experience of Nirvikalpa samadhi, quite an interesting read:

Yes, I see I got le ballon wrong. I did however come across this very simple analogy from Ramakrishna about his experience of nirvikalpa samadhi. Do you like this one? "A salt doll went to measure the depth of the ocean, but before it had gone far into the water it melted away. It became entirely one with the water of the ocean. Then who was to come back and tell the ocean's depth?"

Thanks for sharing this roger. I guess in terms of the title of this thread your experience is that nirvikalpa samadhi is not a dead end. I still have a few questions though if you don't mind. Do you find that you are now able to attain this state more easily in meditation? Do you try to extend this samadhi beyond meditation? Do you have a sense that 'sahaja' samadhi is attainable through continued time spent in nirvikalpa samadhi, or do you do other practices to free yourself from the vasanas?

Okay, so the muscles of meditation are built up, which allows one to reside in deep meditation which results in nirvikalpa samadhi. And it burns because of the hard work put into meditating? Ah, le ballon. Clearly it's just a wrinkly old overstretched bit of wet rubbery stuff that's left. Is this an analogy for the body whilst in the state of nirvikalpa samadhi?

My basic understanding is that nirvikalpa samadhi may feel like/perhaps even is temporarily an ultimate state, but the problem seems to be that it is not retained after meditation. There seems to be unanimity on the issue that to make this state permanent one has to be free of vasanas and samskaras. Ramana states that the work that needs to be done to be free of vasanas cannot be done in the state of nirvikalpa samadhi. Shankaracharya similarly states that “The attainment of Samadhi is not a sufficient cause to eradicate false knowledge, and since false knowledge is the cause of bondage, Samadhi cannot therefore be the cause of liberation.” Sri Chinmoy doesn’t address this particular issue, though he clearly distinguishes between nirvikalpa and sahaja samadi. Swami Chidananda who is also referenced in Tom's link above believes that continued residing in Nirvikalpa samadhi will lead to sahaja samadi, though he notes that this attainment is rare. In this sense all viewpoints and opinions are catered to. (I accept that Sahaja Samadhi as referred to above is being regarded as ultimate self -realisation or self-actualisation.) But another aspect of this issue that interests me is the value of the 'trance-like' meditation that leads to Nirvikalpa samadhi in the first place.

So how does energy and burn relate to Nirvikalpa samadhi? Before they are realised to be the same thing that is. Reside in energy? Reside in the result of energy? But I still don't understand the analogy of developing muscles and the burn this creates.

...

So beyond feeling the bliss and unity and silence, you think energy is being developed in this state. And continued residing in Nirvikalpa samadhi will continue to develop energy? What sort of energy is it?

So what you glimpsed during Nirvikalpa samadhi was enough to cause you to realise There is only that one...no other (no separation between people, things, religions, languages, skin color, animals) There is really no thing. You are I and I am essentially empty of phenomenal existence. The world as we know it is just a vivid dream. You said "Once these two realizations occur (experientially), there is no more negativity or fear or anger or envy etc. There is only love, tranquility and bliss." Do I assume too much in seeing this as allowing all vasanas and samskaras to drop immediately?

What I know about these things is also due to my mother's heart - specifically for irregularity but also general heart support, CoQ10 is unbeatable. It's a non prescription supplement, and the results for my mother were literally life saving. Results make take a couple of weeks at least to kick in, high dose initially, at least 300gm per day. For an official prescription, a naturopath can be consulted.

Jeff, in what way is this discussion not going anywhere if we have established that you mean "Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the result of residing with a quiet mind"? Is this statement wrong somehow? You stated earlier that I needed to understand what you meant by Nirvikalpa Samadhi before you explained what you meant by pushing until your muscles burn. I really don't want to get onto an entirely different track before finishing this one. I suggest we just continue with where we've gotten to. What did you mean by your analogy of "think about it like working out with exercising... If you want to get stronger and in shape, you push until the muscles burn... :)"

No, he wasn't meaning 'don't strive', "He generally tried to discourage devotees from trying to reach this state since he regarded it as something akin to an unproductive detour.(28) One can infer from his remarks and writings that self-enquiry, properly undertaken, bypasses this kevala nirvikalpa state completely and reaches the sahaja state via the alternate route of the aham sphurana experience." Okay, to your understanding Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the result of residing with a quiet mind. So having clarified that have we reached the point where you can now clarify what you meant by "think about it like working out with exercising... If you want to get stronger and in shape, you push until the muscles burn... :)"

If you accept that Ramana generally tried to discourage devotees from trying to reach the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, then to some extent it must be an approach. But back to your definition - you describe Nirvikalpa Samadhi as residing with a quiet mind. You have stated that fears and issues restrict you from diving deeper. So how do you get past this restriction?

Bud, you continue to add your inherently imperfect writings of Nirvana to the inherently imperfect pile that already exist. Do we really need any more?

In your first post you appear to be saying that the vasanas and smaskaras are dropped immediately after realising in Nirvikalpa Samadhi that: There is only that one...no other (no separation between people, things, religions, languages, skin color, animals) There is really no thing. You are I and I am essentially empty of phenomenal existence. The world as we know it is just a vivid dream. and immediately replaced by love, tranquility and bliss. So am I correct in saying that to you there is no work to be done apart from allowing all vasanas and samskaras to drop immediately? Which would also imply that ego is extinguished at the same time, because the vasanas and samskaras are attached to the ego self.

That's interesting roger, and quite clearly explained. Does it help with defusing aggressive interactions? Did it have any effect on your spiritual practices or desire to practice?

Do you find Ramana's conclusions to be generally consistent with the ancient scriptures? I am a haphazard reader and it is my failing that I am not aware of the ancient scriptures as much as I might be. Ramana simply has qualities that I appreciate, in particular brevity, and accessibility. Also I find that I generally agree with his perceptions.