Self-knowledge and mystical experiences - James Swartz

[old3bob]

the cosmic dance(er) never stops...although the Self is so exceedingly fast  (thus beyond measure) that it is standing still everywhere at once.

 

[stirling]

3 hours ago, Lairg said:

My observations of the dynamic flows within Oneness differ greatly from yours.

 

You aren't LOOKING at the oneness... you are looking at the separateness that arises from it.

[Lairg]

42 minutes ago, stirling said:

you are looking at the separateness that arises from it.

 

What sort of experiment would you use to test that hypothesis?

 

 

[stirling]

4 minutes ago, Lairg said:

What sort of experiment would you use to test that hypothesis

 

I answered this question on the "Transmission" thread:

 

Quote

The proposition that "emptiness"/"pure awareness"/Brahman is the underlying reality is actually fairly easy to experience, if one has the drive to discover that this is the case. A month of meditation, moving from meditation on an object to "open awareness" (the whole field of experience is the object) and a teacher who can point out the emptiness are all that is required - no adoption of beliefs, or spending of money, or anything else necessary. - Stirling

 

[Lairg]

Experiments without an objective observer can be unreliable.  Often experiences are conditioned/filtered by beliefs and other interferences.

 

The human that cannot control its thoughts is particularly susceptible to illusory experiences

 

It is certainly possible to experience pure awareness - but I am not sure that is the end point for the human.

 

My observation of active humans is that they are parts of bigger processes and are required to take their places in the unfoldment of the Oneness.

 

In other words: pure awareness is the entry price to conscious cooperation with the Intent of the Oneness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stirling]

12 hours ago, Lairg said:

Experiments without an objective observer can be unreliable.  Often experiences are conditioned/filtered by beliefs and other interferences.

 

Enlightenment is an entirely objective realization. Enlightenment (oneness as you put it) breaks the subject/object way of seeing. It wouldn't be oneness unless it did!

 

12 hours ago, Lairg said:

The human that cannot control its thoughts is particularly susceptible to illusory experiences

 

Agreed, except that no human will ever CONTROL their thoughts, what is required is to let thoughts settle out by no longer stoking and feeding them into mental dialog. Thoughts and feelings don't ultimately belong to a "self", they arise and pass away in awareness in the same way that anything else - the wind, a bird flying by, an ache - arise and pass. 

 

Quote

“You are not a person having an experience of awareness, you are awareness having the experience of a person.” - Timothy Freke, Urban Guru Cafe #45

 

 

12 hours ago, Lairg said:

It is certainly possible to experience pure awareness - but I am not sure that is the end point for the human.

 

It isn't. Realizing that we ARE that awareness is.

 

12 hours ago, Lairg said:

My observation of active humans is that they are parts of bigger processes and are required to take their places in the unfoldment of the Oneness.

 

How would you know? No human has ever been enlightened. Enlightenment has only woken up to itself.

 

Quote

"There are, strictly speaking, no enlightened people, there is only enlightened activity." - Shunryu Suzuki

 

Humans are part of processes, unfoldments, gods, social clubs, and the rest ONLY in the dream of separateness - duality. 

 

12 hours ago, Lairg said:

In other words: pure awareness is the entry price to conscious cooperation with the Intent of the Oneness.

 

Enlightenment is the realization that what we ARE is that pure awareness. It rather changes the rules somewhat.

[silent thunder]

thanks @stirling for sharing here...

[stirling]

4 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

thanks @stirling for sharing here...

 

_/\_

 

[forestofclarity]

I'm not a particular fan of JS but have a few thoughts: 

 

Quote

1. Samadhi brought about by concentrating and stilling the intellect may yield Self knowledge, but it will disappear as soon as concentrated absorption in the silence ends.  You can’t concentrate on one thing forever.

 

I think he misses the point here. Samadhi can be incredibly useful for shutting down the mind in order to obtain a clearer view of what is essential. The error arises when one mistakes a state of meditation with an essential state of being. Swami Sarvapriyananda describes this. If you want to view the screen, you can try to discern it while the movie is going, or you can shut down the projector to see it. The error arises thinking the projector needs to be shut down all the time. But to say that there is no lasting impact from the shutting down and rebooting misses the point and suggests a gap in meditation experience. 

 

Quote

2. All knowledge, material or spiritual, occurs in the intellect.  Ignorance also occurs in the intellect. You need to know the difference between knowledge and ignorance.  If you do, you are free, because you will never choose ignorance because it causes suffering, whereas Self knowledge produces bliss.

 

Depends on what is meant by knowledge. I would say jnana is knowing that does not occur in the intellect, as opposed to vijnana, but no distinction is made here. 

 

Quote

3. Self-realization is Self-knowledge—understanding the “ever-present, ever-evident I” is non-dual consciousness, not a mystic experience.

 

The "I" ness of I seems to dissolve, IMO. 

  

Quote

5. Enlightenment isn’t a destination attained by following a path;  it is reclaiming our disowned nature by exposing the mind/intellect to Vedanta, the science of Self . What’s disowned due to ignorance must be claimed through knowledge, not action.  Action reinforces ignorance. It does not remove it. 

 

This seems to contradict his earlier point. I don't agree with the "vedanta is intellectual" movement generally. I interacted with JS many years ago when he was just getting started. I told him I understood intellectually, but it was not a lived truth or reality. He said that it is was merely understanding plus confidence. I don't think this will stand up in the long run, and have come to learn the difference between intellectual understanding and realization. I don't think he does, or a least he didn't. 

 

Quote

 

6. Dismissing Self knowledge because knowledge is “merely intellectual” is a “merely intellectual” conclusion based on the idea that thinking and awareness are in different orders of the one non-dual reality.  Life is a both/and, not an either/or.  

 

 

This says to me he doesn't understand the prior point. As they say in Dzogchen, experiences are like mist, they fade. Understanding is like a patch, it falls away. Realization is like space, unchanging. Swami S again does not make this mistake, and explains that intellectual understanding is a first step in the shravana, manana, nididhyasana. JS is only touching on the first two, IMO. 

[dwai]

23 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

I'm not a particular fan of JS but have a few thoughts: 

 

 

I think he misses the point here. Samadhi can be incredibly useful for shutting down the mind in order to obtain a clearer view of what is essential. The error arises when one mistakes a state of meditation with an essential state of being. Swami Sarvapriyananda describes this. If you want to view the screen, you can try to discern it while the movie is going, or you can shut down the projector to see it. The error arises thinking the projector needs to be shut down all the time. But to say that there is no lasting impact from the shutting down and rebooting misses the point and suggests a gap in meditation experience. 
 

Ramana Maharishi also had similar comments on what he called “Manolaya” (suspension of the mind) as opposed “manonasha” (cessation of the mind). It is widely accepted that samadhi (nirvikalpa) is temporary and while it can be a very important step in the process, it is not permanent or complete. 

23 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

 

Depends on what is meant by knowledge. I would say jnana is knowing that does not occur in the intellect, as opposed to vijnana, but no distinction is made here. 

it depends on what you mean by jnana  

Tattva jnana is the direct realization of our true nature, but its effect is permanent in the intellect/mind. The mind is permanently changed. 

23 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

 

The "I" ness of I seems to dissolve, IMO. 

  

 

This seems to contradict his earlier point. I don't agree with the "vedanta is intellectual" movement generally. I interacted with JS many years ago when he was just getting started. I told him I understood intellectually, but it was not a lived truth or reality. He said that it is was merely understanding plus confidence. I don't think this will stand up in the long run, and have come to learn the difference between intellectual understanding and realization. I don't think he does, or a least he didn't. 

Then you have more exposure to him than I do. I only went by what I read in the short aphorisms he posted. 

23 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

 

 

This says to me he doesn't understand the prior point. As they say in Dzogchen, experiences are like mist, they fade. Understanding is like a patch, it falls away. Realization is like space, unchanging. Swami S again does not make this mistake, and explains that intellectual understanding is a first step in the shravana, manana, nididhyasana. JS is only touching on the first two, IMO. 

I don’t think he’s saying anything different. But that’s just how I processed his words.  Someone else might process it differently.