Guest guest Posted May 5, 1999 Report Share Posted May 5, 1999 > >You've misunderstood. There is no "getting out of consciousness," rather a >type or level of consciousness that is entirely different than the common >state of being awake or of sleeping. Consciousness without thought, >without mind, without there being someone there to be conscious. >Consciousness that is pure, not stained with thought, attachment and >sensation. Oh if only I had been patient and read all of the emails first. Well said, Tim. Tamra _____________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 1999 Report Share Posted May 5, 1999 At 06:22 AM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote: >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya >>>It is rather common indeed and it can be met as follows: first, >>>understanding that one's 'real nature' is independent of all states, >>>including waking, dreaming and deep, dreamless sleep. > >I must take the rather unpopular view of completely disagreeing with the >assertion in this perspective. It is not possible, in my view, to support >the above statement--either by experience or by rational argument. If one >believes that one can somehow 'get out of consciousness' and into some other >'absolutely indepedendent--state... You've misunderstood. There is no "getting out of consciousness," rather a type or level of consciousness that is entirely different than the common state of being awake or of sleeping. Consciousness without thought, without mind, without there being someone there to be conscious. Consciousness that is pure, not stained with thought, attachment and sensation. >condition... essence' , etc., then I >will assert that a fundamental misunderstanding has occurred regarding the >nature of what is possible and not-possible to any and all beings. ANYTHING is possible, my friend. Anything at all. >The above writer bears the burden of somehow communicating precisely how it is >possible to leave one state and get into another 'non-state.' No. You "bear the burden" of discovering your true nature for yourself. >That a 'transpersonal' or transcendental experience can be had I also >believe. However, one cannot 'get out of' anything. I don't recall reading the words "getting out of something" in the original message. They are entirely your own words. >Consciousness is One. Hmmm... every night when I go to sleep, and if I sleep dreamlessly, I am "out of consciousness" (unconscious) - at least the thinking mind and ego are. If an operation is performed and I am anesthetized, I am out of consciousness. Apparently it's quite possible to be "unconscious." I "get out of consciousness" every night when going to bed! >One cannot reasonably support the proposition that one 'state' of >consciousness is qualitatively exclusive of another. No, "one" cannot support it. But perhaps you, through your own dispelling of ignorance, may be able to support such a view yourself. Be open minded, my friend. With Love, Tim ----- Visit The Core of the WWW at: http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at: http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 1999 Report Share Posted May 5, 1999 > Tim Gerchmez <fewtch > > At 06:22 AM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote: > >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > > >>>It is rather common indeed and it can be met as follows: first, > >>>understanding that one's 'real nature' is independent of all states, > >>>including waking, dreaming and deep, dreamless sleep. > > > >I must take the rather unpopular view of completely disagreeing with the > >assertion in this perspective. It is not possible, in my view, > to support > >the above statement--either by experience or by rational > argument. If one > >believes that one can somehow 'get out of consciousness' and > into some other > >'absolutely indepedendent--state... > > You've misunderstood. There is no "getting out of > consciousness," rather a > type or level of consciousness that is entirely different than the common > state of being awake or of sleeping. Consciousness without thought, > without mind, without there being someone there to be conscious. > Consciousness that is pure, not stained with thought, attachment and > sensation. [...] You intuit it very well. Deep, dreamless sleep, dreaming, being awake and nirvikalpa samadhi, where nirvikalpa samadhi is called the "fourth". In the course of events, it is possible to shed the 'onion-peels' of waking, dreaming and deep, dreamless sleep. This represents a new situation, because one can know something only in a relationship of opposites. The "fourth" without opposites is called turiata. An analogy is that on 'attaining' moksha, there is no longer 'me'. This situation cannot possibly be understood or intuited, because one cannot imagine to be without a 'me' but without a 'me' it is impossible to imagine a 'me' So there is something of a jump; from "me" to "no-me" and it comes as no surprise that the 'side-effects' on 'attaining' moksha are the same as on 'attaining' turiata Jan 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.