Kether
-
Yes. Exactly.
-
You said [we] need a clear idea of what [we're] trying to do, but we can't have a "clear idea" of samadhi: we have to experience it. We know the how. And that's what matters.
(I didn't mean to hijack your thread, if that's what happened, so I apologize for any inconvenience.)
-
No apologies necessary. I agree completely with the focus on experience rather than endless theorising to put off doing the hard work.
But for me, in the last 25 years I've not really had anyone to discuss these ideas with, especially people of the calibre I've found in this forum. I have done a lot of work these past years and have found many of the answers already to the questions I've asked here. However, I think it's really helpful to check my ideas with people who are so switched on, if you don't agree with me or think I may be on the wrong track then I really do want to hear it. I'm not trying to sell anything or prove anything and I consider someone disagreeing me as valuable as someone who agrees. So, if you could explain how you think I may be on the wrong track with my ideas you would be doing me a favour (I also think that you would benefit from being able to clearly explain your ideas). And if it turns out we don't agree then so be it, individuality must always come before confirming. I also apologise if I'm flogging this to death, as I say, I'm new to this and still finding my way.
-
Got it.
You're not "wrong", it's just that I don't know any better. To address your original question, yes, K&C is "a" samadhi, or so I understand.
Someone like J.A.E. would be able to give more insight, but he still would be limited by language: Truth is suprarational, and samadhi is (or so I understand), among other things, a direct perception of Truth â this also means that, when you get there, you'll know it, so there's no great necessity of describing it. So, there's only so much that can be said in this case.
-
@Coagvla said
"... anyone to discuss these ideas with, especially people of the calibre I've found in this forum. I have done a lot of work these past years and have found many of the answers already to the questions I've asked here. However, I think it's really helpful to check my ideas with people who are so switched on, if you don't agree with me or think I may be on the wrong track then I really do want to hear it. I'm not trying to sell anything or prove anything and I consider someone disagreeing me as valuable as someone who agrees. So, if you could explain how you think I may be on the wrong track with my ideas you would be doing me a favour (I also think that you would benefit from being able to clearly explain your ideas). And if it turns out we don't agree then so be it, individuality must always come before confirming. ..."
Just have to note that we have very similar motivations for being here, and due to that I find your position on this quite gratifying
-
My take on this is ... (sorry should I repeat stuff that is common knowledge here or to some, I'm just ordering my reflections on this as I write):
Samadhi is a state of deep concentration on a meditation object. As this is the first state at which what is usually internally modelled as a perceiver and something perceived, undergo a fusion of sorts, it often happens that people can not or only partially remember or reconstruct what actually happened after the experience.
That changes if the experience is repeated often. Self-reflection can then reach a level at which some sort of meta-perception can perceive the processes of perceiving, perceived and the creation of (reality? existence?) out of these polar opposites and translate that experience "down" into everyday consciousness. That is where the "meta-samadhi's" or higher samadhi's start which are reflective levels upon samadhi, these are described in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika for example.
The highest form of Samadhi is probably Nirvikalpasamadhi, which from the way it is described is possibly having a samadhi on samadhi? I am out of my league there as I have never experienced this form of samadhi (yet?).
Building on this, from my experiences and comparisons to other's descriptions of theirs - so not entirely sure about the generalisability (is that a proper word?) - think that the HGA experience is a samadhi on one's own self. And Crowley attributed Nirvikalpasamadhi to Kether.
That would be my take, always interested myself in the experiences and interpretations of others (presuming that those interpretations are also based on experiences).
-
@Simon Iff said
"Samadhi is a state of deep concentration on a meditation object. As this is the first state at which what is usually internally modelled as a perceiver and something perceived, undergo a fusion of sorts, it often happens that people can not or only partially remember or reconstruct what actually happened after the experience.
"This sounds more like dhyana. Samadhi is higher than that.
-
@Patrick Ossoski said
"
@Simon Iff said
"Samadhi is a state of deep concentration on a meditation object. As this is the first state at which what is usually internally modelled as a perceiver and something perceived, undergo a fusion of sorts, it often happens that people can not or only partially remember or reconstruct what actually happened after the experience."This sounds more like dhyana. Samadhi is higher than that."
Higher in what way? Which phenomena are missing from my description in your opinion? As said, I am interested in the experiences of others too, as this helps to understand and inform mine.
-
@Aleister Crowley said
"Dhyana resembles Samadhi in many respects. There is a union of the ego and the non-ego, and a loss of the senses of time and space and causality. Duality in any form is abolished. The idea of time involves that of two consecutive things, that of space two non-coincident things, that of causality two connected things.
These Dhyanic conditions contradict those of normal thought; but in Samadhi they are very much more marked than in Dhyana. And while in the latter it seems like a simple union of two things, in the former it appears as if all things rushed together and united. One might say that in Dhyana there was still this quality latent, that the One existing was opposed to the Many non-existing; in Samadhi the Many and the One are united in a union of Existence with non-Existence. This definition is not made from reflection, but from memory.
Further, it is easy to master the "trick" or "knack" of Dhyana. After a while one can get into that state without preliminary practice; and, looking at it from this point, one seems able to reconcile the two meanings of the word which we debated in the last section. From below Dhyana seems like a trance, an experience so tremendous that one cannot think of anything bigger, while from above it seems merely a state of mind as natural as any other. Frater P., before he had Samadhi, wrote of Dhyana: "Perhaps as a result of the intense control a nervous storm breaks: this we call Dhyana. Samadhi is but an expansion of this, so far as I can see.""
-
Hi Patrick, thanks, I did already know Crowley's description!
The latter being samadhi and the former dhyana in your quote "in the latter it seems like a simple union of two things, in the former it appears as if all things rushed together and united" that doesn't change anything I wrote as far as I can see, Crowley describes samadhi as a clearer experience of the self/non-self union than dhyana.
I was perhaps fuzzy about the Existence/non-Existence part ... the surprising thing (for me) is to find out that one still exists after observer and observed have merged. That has some quite deep ontological implications concerning the relationship of qualia and "outside world" - and the question if/how/to what extent the two are different at all, perhaps even concerning the possibility of survival of one's biological death.
The "loss of the senses of time and space and causality" is a direct consequence of the fusion of self and non-self, methinks.
Regards
Simon
