Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 Taking a bit of a risk in sending this (nonduality police ;-), but here goes... When there is complete disinterest in the contents of consciousness, consciousness becomes fascinated/absorbed with itself... and what normally is perceived as 'objects of consciousness' are perceived only as consciousness. This could be called 'Saguna Brahman', 'Brahman' or 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi'. Normally consciousness is occupied with its contents. In this state (which it definitely is, a state), the 'products' are still perceived (sight, hearing, and so forth) but could be described as acting either as 'mirrors' of consciousness or simply perceived as what they are, consciousness itself, not " apart " from consciousness. There is no arguing with this state, it is 'satchitananda'. It can be disturbed, but only if consciousness again begins to perceive its contents as 'apart' from itself.... this often it takes quite a major disturbance, but often the state seems to come and go. If consciousness leaves this state, all it may take is again -- a complete disinterest or lack of interest in the contents of consciousness to again precipitate it. This 'ecstatic absorption' of consciousness in consciousness is very intense and involves alot of bliss 'localized' in the body. If there is the slightest clinging to this bliss or interest in it as bliss, it fades, since the bliss becomes an object of consciousness... as long as it remains 'background' the state continues. Normally this state seems to appear uninvited, continue uninvited, and leave uninvited... since consciousness always requires an object, if there are no objects of interest, it becomes its own object, and perceives what are usually 'its objects' only as itself. No particular physical position, meditation or anything else is 'required' for this to occur, only complete disinterest in the contents of consciousness... but it cannot be made to occur or generated. This state (whatever it may be called) is of no particular 'importance' and does not reflect 'spiritual growth' or anything like that. It has no particular spiritual meaning or purpose and actually has nothing to do with anything spiritual. All this is simply intuited as 'absolutely true', please don't ask where I came up with it. It may not sit well with those who have never 'had the experience' or have no background in Hinduism, but it absolutely cannot be argued with. It is not like a drug high and there are no 'aftereffects' if/when this state ceases. Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 Sounds about right. ~tomas ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tim wrote: >Taking a bit of a risk in sending this (nonduality police ;-), but here >goes... > >When there is complete disinterest in the contents of consciousness, >consciousness becomes fascinated/absorbed with itself... and what normally >is perceived as 'objects of consciousness' are perceived only as >consciousness. > >This could be called 'Saguna Brahman', 'Brahman' or 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi'. >Normally consciousness is occupied with its contents. In this state (which >it definitely is, a state), the 'products' are still perceived (sight, >hearing, and so forth) but could be described as acting either as 'mirrors' >of consciousness or simply perceived as what they are, consciousness >itself, not " apart " from consciousness. > >There is no arguing with this state, it is 'satchitananda'. It can be >disturbed, but only if consciousness again begins to perceive its contents >as 'apart' from itself.... this often it takes quite a major disturbance, >but often the state seems to come and go. > >If consciousness leaves this state, all it may take is again -- a complete >disinterest or lack of interest in the contents of consciousness to again >precipitate it. This 'ecstatic absorption' of consciousness in >consciousness is very intense and involves alot of bliss 'localized' in the >body. If there is the slightest clinging to this bliss or interest in it >as bliss, it fades, since the bliss becomes an object of consciousness... >as long as it remains 'background' the state continues. > >Normally this state seems to appear uninvited, continue uninvited, and >leave uninvited... since consciousness always requires an object, if there >are no objects of interest, it becomes its own object, and perceives what >are usually 'its objects' only as itself. > >No particular physical position, meditation or anything else is 'required' >for this to occur, only complete disinterest in the contents of >consciousness... but it cannot be made to occur or generated. This state >(whatever it may be called) is of no particular 'importance' and does not >reflect 'spiritual growth' or anything like that. It has no particular >spiritual meaning or purpose and actually has nothing to do with anything >spiritual. > >All this is simply intuited as 'absolutely true', please don't ask where I >came up with it. It may not sit well with those who have never 'had the >experience' or have no background in Hinduism, but it absolutely cannot be >argued with. It is not like a drug high and there are no 'aftereffects' >if/when this state ceases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 LOL :-)... ok. Love, Tim Nisargadatta, " thomas murphy " <tma@c...> wrote: > Sounds about right. > > ~tomas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.