neti neti

Perhaps, samahdi isn't it. Perhaps, states and experiences are not it. Perhaps, "coming and going", is not the reality of things. Perhaps, it's neither this, nor that.

So it seems... to which I would answer both, and neither. (Either or) manifest as they must, and neither is wherein questions do not arise.

Ignore the pointers, ignore what the tradition speaks to, go beneath the surface. Read between the lines, look past the words. When the sublimely blissful state of deep sleep occurs, it doesn't occur with willful intention, it occurs naturally. It just happens. From the sublimely blissful state of deep sleep, one awakens without any willful intention, it occurs naturally. It just happens. Without any question of effort or effortlessness, one's eyes open, and this miraculous universe is on display. There's the experience of bliss, but there's neither bliss, nor not-bliss. There's the experience of supreme consciousness, but there's neither that nor no-experience. Not cessation, just inconceivable. Unawareness is just a pointer. Discard it, and the mind comes to a full stop. The Bodhisattva only appears to attach to these ideas of not giving himself up to bliss, keeping vows, thinking compassionately. He is bliss, He is the vow, and He is compassion. He can appear to be all things to all men, for He is all men, and yet, He is not. You are He. There is no He. Attempt to at least entertain this is beyond the confines of mental modes or definitions. Beyond ideas of advancement or cessation, rest or exertion. Beyond labels. Cancel out the opposites, go beyond that pesky mind which loves grasping even at air until it recedes back from whence it came. Go beyond scales and measures of gain or loss, beyond fuller or lesser realization, beyond all classifications. Beyond, "beyond."

The jnani is in total unawareness. He is all, and from unawareness, sees only himself. There's no wanting to help others, because there is no one there to want. Those in need of help will be drawn to the helper, and helping just happens. Self helps Itself.

I would say there is only Shiva in regard to the perceptual. Parasiva is the Host of hosts, without so much as a micro-drop of solder.

"As long as you don't have the understanding of what you are, all the efforts and trouble are inevitable: they are automatically there. But once you get an inkling of what it is that you really are, there is no need for any effort, or for any trouble to arise. In earlier stages, there is self-love, but that love is formless. In the later stages, even that self-love goes. Then witnessing occurs of the self-love being absent. I am describing my state; it is something like a hollow stick, a hollow tube. No self-love being present, the love for existence has vanished; yet existence is there and activities are taking place. Like Brahma, Vishnu, or Iswara, I have not taken any pose or stance, because there is no material to support it." -The Ultimate Medicine

Agreed. However, to avoid confusion, please allow me to illustrate your statement for clarity. "To be is to know", should convey the profound sense of "pure being". That is, being the "ground of being", wherein one is not conscious of being or, without the sense of "I am." The idea is similar to the eye analogy, in that the eye is unable to see itself. "All other knowing is not being" or, whatever you know cannot be you or, the eye cannot be that which it sees. "In not being they are not knowing" is a bit ambiguous. Because the statement is true in the case of mistaken identity, but false in that "pure being" is the "state" of "not-knowing". Or, there can be no knowledge known separate from Itself. Or, primordial being is knowledge itself. As Nisargadatta made clear, "pure being" may as well be labeled "non-being", as the Absolute isn't being anything in particular. In theory, it is the "not-a-thingness" which makes "things" possible. Now, this isn't to be mistaken for the "Witness" which believes it can perceive the Absolute. The true witness, the Self of All, is the witness of consciousness. The eye cannot see itself... and even a mirror can only reflect an image. Ramakant Maharaj calls it, your "Unidentified Identity." With this illustration in view, one should be able to imagine how it's possible to remain unaware of thoughts, as there is no mind in this "stateless state."

Indeed, they must stay in place for one convinced they are his own. But hacking away at branches is futile, as they tend to grow back ever stronger. The wise aim for the root with one swift blow.

...Ultimately? Who is there to find what? The finder finding is the consciousness finding consciousness. In exploration of its primordial being, It discovers It is beyond being. "When you go beyond awareness, there is a state of non-duality, in which there is no cognition, only pure being, which may be as well called non-being, if by being you mean being something in particular." ~Nisargadatta Maharaj The diver and the deep is within the diving. The culprit creating a separate "I" and making differentiations where there are none is the mind. Indeed, the villain and the victim are one. Or, dropping the need to drop them, and then watching them fade away. Under a different light, their complete lack of power is delightfully made clear. "The deluded mind is caught up in thinking and not thinking. Though the mind of the wise one may think what thoughts come, he is not aware of it." ~Ashtavakra Gita

Lol maybe that's 'cause your body-mind is my body-mind. I guess we're all body-snatchers! But, if it doesn't feel like my body anymore, have I been body-snatched?! Oh well... I don't mind, so it don't matter. No mind... no matter!

We can. So long as we don't neglect that we, the dharmas and the karmas are also abstractions.

I am. If I can muster up enough effort, I'll go find an aspirin. Hopefully the placebo kicks in before the meds.

Well for communication's sake, words can be useful at times. However, that which the word points to does not exist simply by reason of the word's existence. That applies to all traditions. There is no question that you are, that much is self-evident. What must be investigated is who you are, ultimately. Not a remote drone... you, and yet, not you. When you know who you are, every-thing temporal is rendered null and void. Being without beginning or end, every-thing observed within the reference of space/time becomes beyond the notions of relevance or irrelevance. The "delusion" is that there's a possibility for "delusion" which has not been self-imposed or, a "samsara" in which one has been forced to be a wanderer or... a druggie forced to plunge the needle in his vein. It's all an illusion, a part of the creative script, the power of lila. What I've effectively said is that, all that appears to exist, appears to exist within consciousness, as consciousness. That includes me, you and this discussion. To drive this point home... I've effectively said nothing. "All that is heard is nonexistent."~Adi Sankara

I offered an explanation as I see it in post #74, to which you only saw distinction between mind and body. I elaborated in post #78, and you still haven't responded to anything I've said. I guess it must just read like "blah blah blah." So let's try this. To whom are the vasanas 'ok or not'?

And yet, all of the above rely on which assumption? The pleasure is all Mine.

I have no particular position. For some... speech, actions, their causes and effects must be scrutinized down to the molecular level to satisfy curiosity or to justify conclusions through the lens of one's personal experience. For "others", all that occurs as it pertains to this mortal frame is meaningless. Within diversity there cannot be one without the other, there is no life without death, there is no raja without tama. I'll agree insofar as there appears to be change and vacillation between modes of thought... simply stated, anything seems possible. It's all a matter of perspective, I only insist that the perceiver is One. When that's lost sight of, we'll continue highlighting differences between traditions ad-nauseam with indifference to the unifying factor which makes such diversity possible.

We've done this before. It only ended in agreement to disagree. The body-mind complex only appears to have independent existence as the jiva. It's the jiva's assumption he is in possession of an individual mind or body, when in truth, the individual merely appears to exist within Supreme Consciousness. You, if nothing, at least intuitively know this. When the time comes for the dissolution of desires or the work of purification, then that will manifest. You are the ascension and the fallen, and neither. You are the way of avarice, and you are also the way of wisdom... and neither.

It's a matter of perspective, or levels of understanding. At its core, a basic confounding of the subject which was never the object. The ultimate understanding is that there is no jiva or even the concept of a jiva(and therefore no jivanmukta). Or said another way, I am, before the body ever came into the picture. But from the level of understanding that the jiva has any reality unto itself, the idea is that behaviors continue as they must. For the jiva and jivanmukta alike, they will continue through the bodily form in accordance with one's yet to be exhausted "vasanas." The difference lies in that by being firmly established in the Absolute, the jivanmukta has transcended them and merely plays out the latent tendencies of the bodily form within his "final incarnation." Whereas the jiva, trapped in bondage by chains of his own making, will continue to "reincarnate" in accordance with those "vasanas" unless they are transcended by Self-realization. From the level of understanding that jiva is Shiva, the jiva can do nothing as the jiva does not exist. Thus, any question, including the question of bondage is a moot point. Further... what talk can be had of earthly pleasures when one is, in reality, an embodiment of uninterrupted Bliss Absolute?

As an aside, the concepts of habit or addiction stand upon the presupposition of free will... which interestingly coincides with the topic at hand.

Jeff, I think what he was trying to suggest is that a liberated soul's expansive state of consciousness is beyond mundane influences, even those of the extreme consciousness-altering persuasion. A jivanmukta can partake but, due to being so far removed from identification with the body-mind complex, can even be impervious to the substance's effects to varying degrees... much less at the mercy of the body-mind's addictive tendencies. liberated(while "in" the body). For what it's worth, it should be noted that LSD is virtually impossible to become addicted to. Of perhaps more import, is that Neem Karoli Baba seemed completely unaffected by such a large dose.

Chief Quimby: "Congratulations, Gadget, I don't know how you did it." Inspector Gadget: "Thanks, Chief. Uh, what did I do?"

The sensed needfulness of removing ignorance, is itself illusion. This sensed loosening of the shackles, is itself illusion. What effort can be put forth in letting go of chains which never bound me? Can it even truly be said there is a letting go? Even the emergence of my perceived underlying naturalness is mere perception in contrast with perceived unnaturalness. In truth, I, without attributes, simply imagine a "doer". As such, at all levels there is neither effort nor effortlessness. Just ideas, appearances... a snake in a rope. A mirage of water in the desert of the mind. Upon dissolving such distinctions effort is seen as a call from my Self, by my Self. I was my Self when effort arose, I am my Self when effort subsides. What appears as the lofty goal rendering all else insignificant, is already Me. What more is there to realize? Where has effort gone? It's as if it never was. Nothing has changed. Just an appearance of change. An appearance impossible without my being the Stillness... just being as I am. Where is effortlessness? An idea in the dream. Nothing has changed. Spontaneous, without effort or its absence...just being as I am.