What's Samadhi for?

Mindfulness Meditation
#112

[QUOTE=Pawel;33240]I’m just typical intolerant, irrational and dogmatic catholic, but I had few thoughts and decided to share anyway.

I think you are experiencing a sort of enlightenment on mental level. And you have a lot of direct experience – of intellectual/mental constructs. Stating for example that you understand theory right from atom to Brahman - this is a sort of enlightenment, on mental/intellectual level. I think there are several types of enlightenment –at each different level of existence. Higher the level the greater and deeper sense of “light” (of everything that enlightenment represents).

I don’t think any type of enlightenment results in TOTAL knowledge of the universe. E.g. how from many molecules this table you are using is composed of. Or does it? I’m searching for highly enlightened people to check that. Anyone here had such experience of total knowledge?[/QUOTE]

True enlightenment would lead to absolute knowledge. There is nothing that one would not know. I was watching a discourse by Paramhansa Nityananda(yes the one who had a scandal recently) and he mentioned how he could see all the sun, stars, planets and galaxies when his guru showed him a technique(samyama on a nadi) by simply pressing on the nadi when he looked up at the sky he could see this all. He explained the reason this was possible was because he had completely arrested the movement of his eyes(through the nadi) and as a result the eyes could see through the illusory blue layer of the sky into space.

I have no reason to doubt his experience. I have had experiences where I have seen atoms(so has the physicist and philosopher of science Fritjof capra)

I guess I agree intellectual knowledge is a kind of enlightenment. It is a shallow enlightenment though because theory is always only 1% and 99% is practice.

#113

Suryadeva, you know a whole world is waiting for you ,for everyone, right just around the corner. Perhaps You have experienced like a jnana yoga awakening of sorts ,to some dgree, which i would have thought unusual.But your own background & training might have led there.You may well be at an auspicious point in your life. It is the realisation that there is more to it, to an “ordinary” life & perspective as we know it.There are parts that are just waiting to be discovered.

I’ve actually got Muz Murrays copy of ‘Meeting the master’ next to my computer here. You thought of any sites,ashrams or places in India to stay? I have a sadhana that i’m happy with and can take me all the way.All i feel i need to do is surrender period.

Going to India at some point is on the list.An ashram might kiind of speed things up a bit plus India I love.

#114

I agree with you. I think yoga is a serious spiritual path,the deeper you dig and experience it, it’s eseence and depth, and not necessarily for the faint-hearted,sheepish people or those lacking in aspiration. You really can have the whole world and more.Not to make it sound elitist but half-measures can deliver half-results. The main obstacle i feel is finding a sadhana that is working for you. Ideailsm is good to have as you make your way…

#115

Core789,

I have looked into various Ashrams in India I want to join. I want a proper 1-2 year intensive stay in an Ashram(or more if required) The most important thing is I require a living master. I will accept any path if there is a living master and obey it to the tee.

Of the ashrams I have considered so far is the Sivananda Ashram(Riskhikesh, because I love Rishikesh) Bihar School of Yoga, Swami Chinmayananda Vedanta course(3 year resedential) and Yogiraj Siddnath in Pune. Also considered Jaggu vasudev Sadhguru(Isha yoga) but he seems to be expensive(lol) I am open to suggestions. If you know of any living masters, please tell me. My life is sorted as I soon as I find one.

#116
  1. You’ve found a sadhana
  2. You’ve experienced inner guru
    3)You are in India and found nice ashram
    4)There happens to be a great living master resident in the ashram

3)&4) are probably not necesseary or essential but put you in yoga heaven and progress is more likely to be more fast track.

Rishikesh looks like a good place to start.

#117

1)You have a sadhana
2)You have experienced inner guru
3)You are in India and found a nice ashram.
4) There happens to be a living Master resident in the ashram that is available

  1. & 4) are probably not necessary or essential but all together would put you in yoga heaven, and progress would likely be faster track.

Rishikesh would be a good place to start .I would aim to find a place a could focus on sadhana pretty quickly and settle down with.Like you say if you can stay for up to two years for the longer haul.And also absorb from other teachers & yogis there too.

#118

That isha yoga dude is a fortune.I think some gurus don’t charge anything.

I think some paths may well have their weaknesses in some areas, atleast for some people that is.That is why finding a path that is working for you is a main consideration. Because you could submit yourself to a master and he might not give you all the keys you need. I think masters should know which keys you need. That is what disintiguishes themBut even complete yoga paths, some are better than others .Simply quicker and more effective.Tantra yoga and kundalini kirya and mantra yoga(when combined) are good yogas.

#119

[B]Pawel[/B]
I don’t think any type of enlightenment results in TOTAL knowledge of the universe. E.g. how from many molecules this table you are using is composed of. Or does it? I’m searching for highly enlightened people to check that. Anyone here had such experience of total knowledge?

[B]I believe that Surya Deva is correct here in his response. No The Scales is not omniscient… lol can’t help you there. [/B]

For me, along with my little bundle of Karma, it was study that was my catalyst towards the spiritual life. I’d listen to the AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada audio book recording of the Bhagavad Gita on my ipod incessantly. Over and over and over and over.

Maybe not total renunciation of all books? Hmmmm.

If I was stranded on an Island and could have only one book it would be the mahabarata. If I could only have one piece of the mahabarata I would take the Gita. I love the Gita. It is to me complete in everyway.

Study supports Sadahana. At least for me. I had no guru that I could see with my eyes. As things went I would try to find answers to what was happening through the scriptures. I wouldn’t sometimes find the right answer until much later and not always in scripture. But always at the right time. :slight_smile:

Surya Deva I think it would be beneficial if you could give us updates on your progress and insights when you get where your going. If possible. Like an ongoing diary of sorts? That would be cool. I’d like to read it.

Have you tried asking the BIG GUY for help with your guru? or just some guidance in general? He does know best. It will show up if your serious you know… maybe not how you expect it but it will show up. If your serious… So be one the lookout!!!

#120

[QUOTE=The Scales;33250][B]Pawel[/B]
I don’t think any type of enlightenment results in TOTAL knowledge of the universe. E.g. how from many molecules this table you are using is composed of. Or does it? I’m searching for highly enlightened people to check that. Anyone here had such experience of total knowledge?

[B]I believe that Surya Deva is correct here in his response. No The Scales is not omniscient… lol.[/B]

[/QUOTE]

Its one of the concepts I’m trying to understand. Is “omniscience” to be understood in terms of knowledge - as an ability to construct mental structures corresponding with all universe? Which would include knowledge of number of atoms of the all tables everywhere, knowledge of the relationship between frequency content of sun light and a number of the germs in the lake, knowledge of all bank passwords etc.?

I think there is also another meaning - as a state of awareness of the connection of given level of existence with all reality (e.g. as in case of mental enlightenment when we feel we understand everything). So it wouldn’t mean that I have the access to and ability to generate all possible knowledge that can be constructed, but rather awareness of the correspondence between given level and universe (e.g. sensation that I understand everything in universe, that everything can be explained). Similarly with emotional enlightenment when we feel that "its all about ‘love’ ".

Also, the ability to perceive things is not yet enlightenment. A guy with a telescope can see other stars but it doesn’t make him any more enlightened than a guy without telescope.

I would like to talk with someone with this experience of omniscience. What it exactly means…

#121

You’ve got the main ingredient in all transformation,bhakti,spiritula desire.

The rest will take care of itself. Even the spiritual guidance.I think a number of gurus and teachers is a good route to take.And cultivate your inner guru.Self-reliance is so freeing and empoweriing…A highly experienced guide sitting across from me would be nice but i know i have to do most of the work myself.Yes i he put me up for a year, yes i would be lucky.I think you could jumpstart your journey but some paths might give you quicker porgress. Trying out a number of paths and gurus is good as it makes you more discerning and able to appreciate which one might have shortcomings in certain areas or not.Also dependency on other teachers is not always a good thing. Gurus or teachers can guide you so far, bu then you have to break away and stand on your own feet so you are not stuck in the same garden path for too long.Folk that are stuck on a path or guru might only feel really empowered in their presence so guru-disciple dependency can be unhealthy, and have a disempowering effect,the looking to others for authority in order to guide our sadhana every inch,step of the way.Soometimes we need to question our teachers as wellas ourselves;this is fact often involves looking at ourselves.Cultivating inner guru.There is pitfalls in buying nto teachings that may be weak in certain areas for some people.And the role of gurus could play some hand in this as well as inspire.Gurus are v .good though but they’re merely guides, and inspirers.They soften us up so we can practice.

#122

I would like to talk with someone with this experience of omniscience. What it exactly means…
I think it possibly apporaximates in part atleast to dropping the dogma of conceptualisation which blinds us to a true awareness of reality.We stop tring to evaulate it.We accept it as it is.

It could also be like a perpetual “a-ha” train of moments or rather continuum of experience,as if all the dots join up and in a perpetual dynamic, but also a wonder and in-aweness feeling at the universe.An inner knowing and a mystical experience of Oneness.

#123

[QUOTE=core789;33254]I think it possibly apporaximates in part atleast to dropping the dogma of conceptualisation which blinds us to a true awareness of reality.We stop tring to evaulate it.We accept it as it is.[/QUOTE]

Hm… I always thought that knowledge is a conceptualization - representation of the reality using mental constructs. If you drop conceptualization you can’t really generate any knowledge. It would be awareness and perception then. The same way I perceive that part of reality in front of me is an object called by humans computer (well, by using word computer I already conceptualized reality…), but I don’t know how it exactly works. And even if I could see all the currents flowing through it guts I still wouldn’t have knowledge of its workings.

#124

Maybe it’s not a computer if you don’t conceptualise it.

True or real knowledge is probably free of conceptualisation.Knowledge is bondage, illusion. limitation. Vedanta- end of knowledge.

I think the suggestion is maybe it’s not practical knowledge.It does’nt generate further knowledge which is what llike you say knowedge usually does. It reproduces. But more of the same stuff.Useful information to turn into a useful submarine design- is that knowledge?. Or is an altered state of consciousness? somehow better knowledge. Inner knowing.Inner knowledge.Discrimintory knowledge about real basics of realitty, the building blocks. consciousness,awarness itself.Maybe that is better knowledge. I don’t know.But i think i know what i’d have.

Knowledge that brings the search to an imgagined end,a satisfactory conclusion? How do we live- knowledge of the art of living ,skillful existence and evolution.Maybe we need to learn some things in order to prepare to unlearn things that do not serve us, are not useful somehwo or practical. . I see what you’re saying though. I do take your point,yes.

#125

[QUOTE=core789;33257]Maybe it’s not a computeer if you don’t conceptualise it.[/QUOTE]

So in what sense a person unable to recognize a computer from other objects can be called omniscient? I feel there is a misconception somewhere…

#126

Because we think it’s useful or superior knowledge,say in compaprison to other observations we could make.But it’s not really.But some kind of perceptual error.We just all agree it’s a computer based on the supposed higher functioning and practicality we want to confer on it. Yes if we had’nt lit fires at the end of our caves at night we might be extinct.

Don’t forget it’s a shared conditioning. That is partly why it’s generally thought that the enlgihtened tend to be in a minority or number a few.If we were all enlightenend equally then the term might lack any cache.

#127

Of course that is a limited sense of knowing( and therfore in some ways erroenous; it is only useful to some people ,to gods it means anything they choose). It is deep metaphysical knowing beyond ideas.,mental constructs like yousay. You could say touches on the level of intuition and the like… It is what separates the philosopher from the mystic. It is inner knowing,wisdom rather than fancy ideas,conceptualisations and tidy grand theories.Deep gut knowing and feeling.

I think you can combine the methodologies of science with spiritual and metaphysical knowing. They did used to call physics natural philosophy until relatively recently, i believe…

#128

Omniscience is all knowing.

And logically ,that kiind of awarnesss could have better ideas for a computer than we currently have. In fact they would probably laugh at our comparitive primitiveness.Like sleeping on a bed of flint stones.They might think we were really backwards.

If one was omniscient one might not choose to see the computer like we do as a bundel of electronics ,silicon and metals all glued together.A god connects all objects together,even the most dissparate. Finds harrmony in the whole.He does’nt look for separation.He sees the table the computer it’s on and the room both are in, if he chooses and therefore ssees that as just as important if he chooses.

Omniscience could be described as the the most perfect level of self-awareness or self-knowledge.Which brings you back to that SD quote ‘I am God’.Maybe it’s easier just to say I am rather than affix the ‘God’ concept onto the end which might be the biggest illusion and trickery of them all…Religion could be a form of organised hypnosis.Marx did day it was opium for the people but then the same thing could be said of Marxism,indeed even more so.

#129

[QUOTE=core789;33253]You’ve got the main ingredient in all transformation,bhakti,spiritula desire.

The rest will take care of itself. Even the spiritual guidance.I think a number of gurus and teachers is a good route to take.And cultivate your inner guru.Self-reliance is so freeing and empoweriing…A highly experienced guide sitting across from me would be nice but i know i have to do most of the work myself.Yes i he put me up for a year, yes i would be lucky.I think you could jumpstart your journey but some paths might give you quicker porgress. Trying out a number of paths and gurus is good as it makes you more discerning and able to appreciate which one might have shortcomings in certain areas or not.Also dependency on other teachers is not always a good thing. Gurus or teachers can guide you so far, bu then you have to break away and stand on your own feet so you are not stuck in the same garden path for too long.Folk that are stuck on a path or guru might only feel really empowered in their presence so guru-disciple dependency can be unhealthy, and have a disempowering effect,the looking to others for authority in order to guide our sadhana every inch,step of the way.Soometimes we need to question our teachers as wellas ourselves;this is fact often involves looking at ourselves.Cultivating inner guru.There is pitfalls in buying nto teachings that may be weak in certain areas for some people.And the role of gurus could play some hand in this as well as inspire.Gurus are v .good though but they’re merely guides, and inspirers.They soften us up so we can practice.[/QUOTE]

I think the guru should love the student like his own child. Even more so. I think the guru who is right for you, if embodied, will have a profound perhaps transcendental connection with you.

The guru studies you. He may be a teacher to others, but with you the relationship is much closer. He may have his own unique style in keeping with his personality which meshes harmoniously with yours.
It has to have a closeness, a certain intimacy.
I think this would be an ideal.

#130

There are not just suprasensorial realities, but infrasensorial ones too. But those areas are dangerous. Edgar Cayce’s cairvoyance, Blavatsky’s clairvoyance, and many eastern masters too, recieved and recieve spirtual messages, images, knowledge, without being able to maintain their clear daylight consciousness. Such things, while might be useful, as tools for higher powers, should never be examples for an earnest seeker. There are shortcuts as you say. A sound minded disciple will stay far away from them. Just wanted to present a view what is less forgiving regarding drugs.

#131

It’s a very odd idea, drugs giving some sort of insight. There are so many drugs, and they effect people differently. When I was a drinker, I was an angry drunk, and used to get aggressive, and make excuses to justify my actions. It’s as far from realization as one could get. LSD and pot used to make me feel enlightened, but they just fucked my mind after a while, and my last drug problem was morphine. It makes you feel very satisfied, but after a while you develop a tolerance, and you need it just to feel normal. Paracetamol is a drug, but all that does is get rid of headaches. Drugs are just drugs.