Samadhi and dreamworlds

[David Quinn]

This thread is an offshoot of a discussion which occurred in the "The Invalidity of Enlightenment" thread between Unwise and myself. It concerns the nature of satori and the issue of whether or not the world is a dream.

Unwise wrote:

Unwise: Only because I say that 'real' means something that does not change and is eternal, do I say that objects, energies and time do not 'exist.' However, the dream which contains them is real. It is always full, itself, and eternal. Like the kaleidoscope is real, the dream is real.

Within the dream is a dreamer - he comes and goes as part of the dream. The dream cannot exist without a dreamer. When the dream unfolds, a dreamer sees a dream and CONSCIOUSNESS is created. Usually consciousness is directed away from the dreamer to the dream. In higher states of consciousness, the dreamer becomes aware of himself as self consciousness.

In enlightenment or lucid dreaming, consciousness is completely turned in on itself as the dreamer. Total self absorption takes place and the dream disappears. This is samadhi or satori or awakening or realization or enlightenment.

DQ: Again, you're being deceived by your own imagination here. If the "dream" were to truly disappear during this period, and if there are no objects of consciousness at all, then consciousness itself would also disappear. You wouldn't even be aware that you had entered this period, and you wouldn't have any memory of it either. You would look back after the event and notice, with horror, that a chunk of your past was mysteriously missing.

Consciousness can only occur if there is consciousness of something. That is what consciousness is. These "satoris" you are talking about are simply altered states of consciousness which are quite common and, despite what you think, always involve some kind of object of consciousness. They have nothing to do with genuine satori or enlightenment.

You're not the first person to mistake these for enlightenment and I'm sure you won't be the last either. I've met many people who have become Christians, Buddhists, Hinduists, and even atheists, via these experiences - all of them believing they have found the right path. It's an easy mistake to make; these altered states can be very powerful experiences, after all. But unless you are careful, they can easily become a trap. To my mind, they are a major pitfall on the path to enlightenment.

The seeker of enlightenment needs to keep shaking off everything he has attained in the past as though it were a filthy bedspread and start each moment anew.

Unwise: There are many issues going on here now that I think are very important and more to the heart of the matter - and what I am actually interested in discussing. It is nice to move beyond simple insults at times. These are actual discussions concerning the nature of reality that interest me.

I am particularly interested in the very fine points of my experience because, really, I am in agreement about much of what I see here. For instance, I believe the 'totality' is self-existent (or real) in a way that 'parts' of the totality come and go and rely on other causes. The totality does not have a cause, therefore it is 'real.'

So then, you ask how I can believe the totality is a 'dream' which comes and goes? This is a good question and difficult to discuss. The ideas of 'viewer' and 'viewed' and 'consciousness' and 'object of consciousness' are very fine points - not for the beginner - even-though you consider me on level 2 out of 10 - just above a retard, I think. Even if I am deceived, I don't think you can correctly state that deep mystical states are a dime a dozen. This makes you sound pretentious and unwise (like me). Who today even cares about such things, let along a person who is capable of highly altered states? Certainly not many.

You describe samadhi as unconsciousness, yet people who have experienced it seem to have experienced SOMETHING - otherwise they would be as you suggest - ignorant that something happened at all. This is not the case. That would certainly not be a state that would bring intelligence. It would be a state that many college boys have experienced in the frat house.

To be quite plain to you, I am a proponent of duality. Specifically, the ancient Samkhya system I find totally consistent with my own experience. (Actually, my own view is a hybrid between Samhkya and Advaita). In this system, there are two 'things' that are self-existent: 'the totality' or Nature which is called Prakriti, and, 'Consciousness' with is an un-embodied, uncreated 'something else.' This is difficult to discuss because consciousness is always assumed to be mentation - the workings of a human (or animal) brain. I say consciousness is utterly beyond any beings - and - NOT connected to what you call 'the Totality.'

Okay, there is plenty of material here, but before we can discuss anything else, there is a major contradiction in your thinking which you are going to have to deal with. We can't proceed until this is resolved. Initially, you wrote above:

I am particularly interested in the very fine points of my experience because, really, I am in agreement about much of what I see here. For instance, I believe the 'totality' is self-existent (or real) in a way that 'parts' of the totality come and go and rely on other causes. The totality does not have a cause, therefore it is 'real.'

And then further down you wrote:

To be quite plain to you, I am a proponent of duality. Specifically, the ancient Samkhya system I find totally consistent with my own experience. (Actually, my own view is a hybrid between Samhkya and Advaita). In this system, there are two 'things' that are self-existent: 'the totality' or Nature which is called Prakriti, and, 'Consciousness' with is an un-embodied, uncreated 'something else.' This is difficult to discuss because consciousness is always assumed to be mentation - the workings of a human (or animal) brain. I say consciousness is utterly beyond any beings - and - NOT connected to what you call 'the Totality.'

In these two paragraphs you are using the word "totality" in conflicting ways. In the first paragraph, you are using it to mean utterly everything. You say, corrrectly, that "the totality does not have a cause, therefore it is real."

But in the second paragraph, you are suddenly changing tack by confining the totality to mean something less. You are suddenly removing something from it - namely, consciousness. You're also creating a further contradiction by implying that the totality (as you mean it in the second sense) does have a cause after all - again, namely, consciousness.

You've got to make a decision here. Either be a dualist and stop using the term "totality" incorrectly to mean "everything except conciousness". Or use the term "totality" properly to mean utterly everything and give up your attachment to dualism. You can't affirm both without reducing your philosophy into nonsense.

In my view, you are going to have to face up to the possibility that this "consciosuness" which you want to exempt from the Totality is really just another illusion within the Totality.

One other point regarding something else you said:

You describe samadhi as unconsciousness, yet people who have experienced it seem to have experienced SOMETHING - otherwise they would be as you suggest - ignorant that something happened at all. This is not the case. That would certainly not be a state that would bring intelligence. It would be a state that many college boys have experienced in the frat house.

I am not describing samadhi as unconsciousness. I am simply pointing out the logical implications of your belief that samadhi involves no thoughts or things or any objects of consciousness at all. What you're describing here is unconsciousness.

As you say, people who experience samadhi experience SOMETHING. This "something" they experience is indeed an object of consciousness. It is still part of the world of illusions which has to be abandoned.

If you think that enlightenment involves entering into some kind of state of pure consciousness or experiencing some kind of samadhic experience, then you are still a victim of ignorance. The true experience of enlightenment doesn't depend on any particular state or mystical experience or any form of experience at all. The enlightened person is liberated from all forms, without exception.

-

[suergaz]

David:

The true experience of enlightenment doesn't depend on any particular state or mystical experience or any form of experience at all.

How then is it an experience at all?

The enlightened person is liberated from all forms, without exception.

Then how can they possibly be a person, let alone enlightened?

[David Quinn]

Suergaz wrote:

DQ: The true experience of enlightenment doesn't depend on any particular state or mystical experience or any form of experience at all.

s: How then is it an experience at all?

We never stop experiencing it.

-

[suergaz]

DQ: The true experience of enlightenment doesn't depend on any particular state or mystical experience or any form of experience at all.

s: How then is it an experience at all?

DQWe never stop experiencing it.

So then it takes on infinite form, regardless of the fact that infinity itself has no form we can ultimately know.

In other words, it remains an experience, and is dependent on the form it takes.

[unwise]

I am not describing samadhi as unconsciousness. I am simply pointing out the logical implications of your belief that samadhi involves no thoughts or things or any objects of consciousness at all. What you're describing here is unconsciousness.

I thought I said that samadhi was the state of consciousness turned upon itself - that sees itself as 'I am' - as some sort of being that is alone in the universe, outside of time, unmoving, not acting, having never acted, outside of personality....the pristine state of pure being alone as reality.....where all other things, all objects, all planets and all beings are seen as unreal. THIS is samdhi and it is certainly not blind and dumb, not unconsciousness. It is the perfect state of mental quietude - a reflection turned as a mirror upon the pure essence of consciousness alone. Thus consciousness is seen for what it is. One BECOMES this eternal consciousness and partakes of its eternal state. THIS is enlightenment.

[David Quinn]

If you're just going to keep repeating the tired old hinduistic scripts and not deal with the issues at hand, then there is no point in having a discussion. I thought you said that you were interested in having a serious discussion about these issues. I guess I was wrong.

Again, what you are refering to here is an altered state of consciousness which is of little relevance to enlightenment and wisdom. I call it "infant consciousness" since it is essentially connected to a fluid state of consciousness that we all experienced as very young children.

During this childhood period, as we were slowly becoming more conscious and our minds had not yet settled down into the fixed grooves of an older, more grown-up mindset, we had the mental flexibility to see the world from all different kinds of altered perspectives. These perspectives often took on a somewhat philosophic flavour - for example, sometimes we were able to enter into oceanic forms of consciousness in which time seemed to have little significance and everything took on the appearance of being unreal.

Then, later on in adult life, some of us are able to reawaken to this state of mind - either through drugs, or through a sudden shocking incident, or though a sustained bout of meditation. Interestingly, those who experience these reawakenings always report a sense of familiarity about them. That was certainly true in my case. There is always the strong sensation during these reawakening periods that one has experienced this kind of mind before, exotic though it be, even to the point that it feels like that one is finally "going home". And in a sense that is perfectly correct. One is re-entering a long-forgotten, but very significant, period of early childhood life.

Again, it is important to realize that although these reawakenings can trigger some interesting insights, they have nothing to do with the highest enlightenment. When people first encounter these reawakenings, they instinctively conclude that they are experiencing God or nirvana. But they are wrong. At best, they've only brushed the tip of a very large iceberg, and even then, only by the most intelligent.

In truth, enlightenment can only be reached through a long period of sustained reasoning and ridding the mind of all delusion. And one of these delusions is the idea that altered states can reveal the nature of God.

-

[David Quinn]

Suergaz wrote:

DQ: The true experience of enlightenment doesn't depend on any particular state or mystical experience or any form of experience at all.

s: How then is it an experience at all?

DQ: We never stop experiencing it.

S: So then it takes on infinite form, regardless of the fact that infinity itself has no form we can ultimately know.

In other words, it remains an experience, and is dependent on the form it takes.

To know wisdom we need the ability to experience things, certainly. But we don't need to squeeze our experiences into a particular form or shape. The enlightened person is able to perceive the nature of Reality in all experiences and states of consciousness. He doesn't have to rely on his mind being in a certain state.

To use a Zen expression, searching for "pure consciousness" is like painting legs on a snake.

-

[unwise]

Mr. Quinn, if what I say has any bering on 'tired Hindu scripts,' it is only because it is my own personal experience, and the ancient discussions of enlightened people concerning their situation is very familiar to me.

You always have an interesting defense of your unassailable opinion, but I doubt that what I experience is 'child mind.' The reason I say this is because my 'state' is a constant condition with me. If it were a 'state' it would have come - and gone. But it does not go away. It is always there in the background - this view, this perspective. This is why I said I am in samadhi NOW even as I write this or go to work. Also, I say (we say) that this is not even a 'state' that began at some point in time, but was ALWAYS present. The enlightened person only notices what is already the case.....AND, it is the constant case of all other humans - they are currently experiencing 'enlightenment' or 'pure consciousness' right now - all the time. The mind is like a bucket of water outside in the sunshine - you look inside at the water and see nothing, but if you stilled the water you would see the sun there in reflection. Many buckets with the sun - only one sun. The sun is not in the bucket.

Another interesting side affect of my 'realization' is that I no longer have any questions. I am not bothered for one second about my soul, or god, or life after death, or heaven, or reincarnation.....nothing. It provides an instant answer for all existential questions of every kind.

I'm sorry it sounds like a script, but it is my own experience.

[Shardrol]

And what is that answer?

[unwise]

Don't worry, be happy.

[Sapius]

Just curious, unwise...

If it were a 'state' it would have come - and gone. But it does not go away. It is always there in the background - this view, this perspective. This is why I said I am in samadhi NOW even as I write this or go to work. Also, I say (we say) that this is not even a 'state' that began at some point in time, but was ALWAYS present. The enlightened person only notices what is already the case.....

Since you have noticed what is already the case, you are now always in a Samadhi, so now what? What was so different before this realization?

…AND, it is the constant case of all other humans - they are currently experiencing 'enlightenment' or 'pure consciousness' right now - all the time.

And all that they have to do is realize that that IS the case, right? But the problem is, how do you convince billions of them? I don’t think the sun reflecting from a still water surface in a bucket will help.

BTW, do animals have some lower form of consciousness? Or none? Or are they too experiencing this pure consciousness? Can an animal attain Samadhi?

Pardon me for my stupid questions, but you say you have all the answers.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Another interesting side affect of my 'realization' is that I no longer have any questions. I am not bothered for one second about my soul, or god, or life after death, or heaven, or reincarnation.....nothing. It provides an instant answer for all existential questions of every kind.

But there are lots of people, including many living in some asylum, suffering brain damage of trauma, or any other malfunction of the nervous system, that are in some non-stop state of some kind. They have often no questions left as well. Pure certainty that we're all living inside a giant banana.

Now how would you go about finding out your situation is a healthy one? Lack of questioning or caring is certainly not a good test.

[unwise]

Sapius (nice Greek name): Since you have noticed what is already the case, you are now always in a Samadhi, so now what? What was so different before this realization?

You didn't ask this, but there is a great analogy to enlightenment that I am fond of - It concerns a women looking all around the house for a piece of jewelry - under the pillows, under the carpet, in the closets and attic....after she has lost all hope of finding her necklace a stranger points out that she is wearing it.

What difference does it make? There is a hairsbreadth of difference between my state and yours, but that difference is a chasm. I am utterly devoid of fear about the future or death.

t? But the problem is, how do you convince billions of them?

I have no need or motivation to convince anyone of anything. None. In fact, people do not NEED to become enlightened. Not at all.

BTW, do animals have some lower form of consciousness? Or none? Or are they too experiencing this pure consciousness? Can an animal attain Samadhi?

Ramana Maharshi believed animals could become enlightened. Any being capable of self awareness is capable of enlightenment. This would include many animals. Enlightenment is only a clearer and higher state of self awareness.

Pardon me for my stupid questions, but you say you have all the answers

No, I don't remember my quadratic equations and I can't make a wrist watch either. I do have ONE answer, however - the important one.

DVR: But there are lots of people, including many living in some asylum, suffering brain damage of trauma, or any other malfunction of the nervous system, that are in some non-stop state of some kind. They have often no questions left as well. Pure certainty that we're all living inside a giant banana.

Observe people in a mental ward. I have. Then observe me living my life and doing things. If you see no difference, then you have a nice point. Many of these people are in horrific states of unhappiness and suffering. Spend a day in a mental ward - it's instructive. In fact, it's quite a blessing to simply be normal and functioning. Don't aspire to become a nut case with philosophy - Camus, Nietzsche and Soupy didn't fare too well.....

Now how would you go about finding out your situation is a healthy one? Lack of questioning or caring is certainly not a good test

If a person is heathy, content, functioning, able to complete tasks and provide for himself - displays a sense of humor, an ability to comprehend others and new situations, has a good memory, demonstrates good learning ability - is mindful of his own health and needs while also being aware of the needs and expectations of those around him - respects societal agreements such as privacy and boundaries......I am willing to bet some money that this guy is not sick.

[bert]

unwise:

Ramana Maharshi believed animals could become enlightened. Any being capable of self awareness is capable of enlightenment. This would include many animals. Enlightenment is only a clearer and higher state of self awareness.

getting the conciousness back to a first cause.we must probe into lower scales of life;the further back,the more wonderful our attainments.

[sschaula]

unwise,

I'm gonna stray from the typical philosophy here, and get into the Vedantic philosophy (with which I have more experience than most here)...

You aren't enlightened if you've read scriptures on the nature of consciousness. You're a beginner. Anyone can see, after a little self analysis, that they are that which sees. Anyone can think, "I'm not that which is seen." Neti-neti, right?

Anyone can do that. That isn't samadhi or enlightenment. The most you gain is an understanding of what must be done...you gain at best an understanding of some scriptures.

There's more work to be done for you in order to become enlightened. Don't think that because you understand that your essential nature is consciousness that you've merged with that. Don't think you are in a state of truth, or that you comprehend the truth. You've read it from writings of people that've found it. You're hanging off their backs, trying to stand on their shoulders. You're not living the truth, you're mimicking.

I've done the same thing. Pay attention to what I'm about to say...

Samadhi is a state of mind where your conscious thoughts, subconscious thoughts, and latent impressions of the mind are silenced. That means while you're in samadhi, you don't think.

Can you answer honestly that there are no thoughts at all in your mind while you type about pure consciousness? I'm sure you'll notice, with some honest analysis, that you have thoughts.

The reason why Ramana Maharshi sat in silence was because there was hardly any mental movement left in him.

Trying to comprehend what Vedantic sages say about reality won't make sense. You'll constantly feel like you're bumping your head against some invisible wall. What you're doing is taking their words and mistaking it as the truth...why don't you do what they did to realize the truth?

Read the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Meditate, and try to still your mind. You'll see that you've been wrong here.

[unwise]

Savikalpa-Samadhi (?) n.
[Skt.]

1. A state of consciousness in which one knows one's own consciousness but remains in a subject-object relationship with the world. In contrast to nirvikalpa-samadhi, this state still contains a duality, which prevents total absorption in consciousness. A Tathagata is said to move between both kinds of samadhi without discrimination as the circumstance requires.

Nirvikalpa-Samadhi (?) n.
[Skt., changeless samadhi]

1. A term used in Vedanta to refer to the highest, transcendent state of consciousness. It is the realization of "I am consciousness" which exists without the thought, "I am consciousness." In this experience there is selflessness, no-mind, non-duality, and the subject-object relationship momentarily disappears. It is the highest, samadhi-state of non-dual union with one's own consciousness.

From this you can see what I have always said, that I am a Tathagata - intimately familiar with both types of samadhi at all times.

But, really, I am amused at either being called a retard or a beginner by people who do not know the doctrine. You will see that these explanations mirror exactly what I always say in mere small talk about such states.

[Blair]

If a person is heathy, content, functioning, able to complete tasks and provide for himself - displays a sense of humor, an ability to comprehend others and new situations, has a good memory, demonstrates good learning ability - is mindful of his own health and needs while also being aware of the needs and expectations of those around him - respects societal agreements such as privacy and boundaries......I am willing to bet some money that this guy is not sick.

His sickness pervades his entity, it is invisible to the unwise eye.

[Sapius]

Unwise wrote:

What difference does (Samadhi) make? There is a hairsbreadth of difference between my state and yours, but that difference is a chasm. I am utterly devoid of fear about the future or death.

With all due respects, so am I utterly devoid of fear about the future or death, but for me it is through common sense. If I know that existence is but a change and no thing in itself lasts forever, how can fear of future or death make sense? I’m sure we are not talking about instinctual reactions of protecting ones self from a falling windowsill here, nor due to Samadhi you simply stand and watch it until it cracks your skull, now do you?

I have no need or motivation to convince anyone of anything. None. In fact, people do not NEED to become enlightened. Not at all.

That is strange… well then… what are you doing here? If you are not here to save our souls then I think you better stick to politics then. No? Or may be any other activity, that shouldn’t make a difference. Ah! I see, since it wouldn’t make a difference, why not preach enlightenment through Samadhi, right?

Ramana Maharshi believed animals could become enlightened. Any being capable of self awareness is capable of enlightenment. This would include many animals. Enlightenment is only a clearer and higher state of self awareness.

A Maharishi believed? Well, I know that even an amoeba is self-aware from seeing its reactions towards its environment, but how is realization possible without linguistically and logically comprehending self-awareness?

No, I don't remember my quadratic equations and I can't make a wrist watch either. I do have ONE answer, however - the important one.

Form my questions I hope you know that I do understand that we are not talking about remembering all food recipes in existence, but I do need to explore certain background before I ask you about the ONE important answer you know. If the background satisfies me, then I might not even ask you what that ONE important answer is.

You mentioned to Diebert…

Observe people in a mental ward. I have. Then observe me living my life and doing things.

I don’t know about Diebert but I have observed a mental ward, and I have all the time. When and where can I come and observe you live your life? Or may be you can put yourself on a webcam 7/24 for the benefit of mankind. Sorry, wrong reason, lets just say for the hell of it. :D

[unwise]

If you are not here to save our souls then I think you better stick to politics then. No? Or may be any other activity, that shouldn’t make a difference. Ah! I see, since it wouldn’t make a difference, why not preach enlightenment through Samadhi, right?

You are forgetting a very important possibility - I am amusing myself.

A Maharishi believed? Well, I know that even an amoeba is self-aware from seeing its reactions towards its environment, but how is realization possible without linguistically and logically comprehending self-awareness?

A tree will do the same thing. It's roots will seek out water for its own preservation. This is not self awareness. I have two cats, one of them has self awareness. Language is not needed as you also had self awareness before you knew the language.

I don’t know about Diebert but I have observed a mental ward, and I have all the time. When and where can I come and observe you live your life? Or may be you can put yourself on a webcam 7/24 for the benefit of mankind. Sorry, wrong reason, lets just say for the hell of it.

Since I am not here to attract disciples or to become known, I would not be interested in satisfying anyone's curiosity about me. Since you are also not afraid of death or have questions about your soul, I may not have any new info for you.

[Jamesh]

With all due respects, so am I utterly devoid of fear about the future or death, but for me it is through common sense. If I know that existence is but a change and no thing in itself lasts forever, how can fear of future or death make sense?

The QRS say much the same thing about the enlightened.

I don't believe it for a second. I am certain that anyone told they had only 3 months to live would regret having to cease being a being.

Sometimes old frail folks "have had enough pain" and I can understand them not being bothered about dying, but if you are reasonably healthy and a thinker then you cannot help but fear the cessation of consciousness. Hero types and venture seekers are not thinkers.

[suergaz]

Sometimes old frail folks "have had enough pain" and I can understand them not being bothered about dying, but if you are reasonably healthy and a thinker then you cannot help but fear the cessation of consciousness.

I don't think fear is the right word. If you are healthy, and a thinker, then you cannot want it. Fearing it is something else.

[Sapius]

Unwise wrote:

You are forgetting a very important possibility - I am amusing myself.

No, that is exactly what I meant.

A tree will do the same thing. It's roots will seek out water for its own preservation. This is not self awareness.

If you say so, I will take your word for it.

I have two cats, one of them has self awareness.

So you and one of your cats are aware that you and it is always in a state of self-awareness. Good. Why is the other cat not?

Language is not needed as you also had self awareness before you knew the language.

Sure, but just being self-aware is not enough, is it? What good is it if I don’t realize that the necklace has been around my neck always? Even one of your cats is self-aware, but does it realize the fact? The essential point is in the realization, isn’t it? The difference between Samadhi and Non-Samadhi, isn’t it? The time the lady realizes that the necklace was always around her neck. For this she has to reflect back, as you said “state of consciousness turned upon itself”, and any act of realization needs some thought process, that is, to realize that you are indeed self-aware and hence attain Samadhi, or am I wrong, and every self-aware thing is in a state Samadhi, always? If you say so, then there is no argument.

Since I am not here to attract disciples or to become known, I would not be interested in satisfying anyone's curiosity about me. Since you are also not afraid of death or have questions about your soul, I may not have any new info for you.

That’s fair enough. Enjoy your stay and existence responsibly. :)

[Sapius]

Jamesh wrote:

S: If I know that existence is but a change and no thing in itself lasts forever, how can fear of future or death make sense?

J: The QRS say much the same thing about the enlightened.

Does it matter what label one applies to feel elevated or otherwise? It doesn’t matter to me either way.

I don't believe it for a second. I am certain that anyone told they had only 3 months to live would regret having to cease being a being.

Neither would I believe, so you don't have to, but who says that regret is the same as fear? I surely regret that I know that I will cease being, what an immensely astounding experience is being I can hardly begin to express in words, but why should I fear not being?

Sometimes old frail folks "have had enough pain" and I can understand them not being bothered about dying, but if you are reasonably healthy and a thinker then you cannot help but fear the cessation of consciousness.

Sorry, I simply cannot see the logic behind the fear if I know that change and death is inevitable, may be because I’m not a thinker in the sense you mean, otherwise I should be, is it? Yes, I might even clone myself if it guarantees the continuation of my particular consciousness with good physical health, and even then there might be a limit to repeat multiple cloning because of physical limitations, but either way, how and where enters fear?

[suergaz]

If one has not loved life to ones limit, fear of dying may enter.
Our lives are finite, but we live them infinitely in this infinity.

What is deja vu?!:D

[unwise]

Sure, but just being self-aware is not enough, is it? What good is it if I don’t realize that the necklace has been around my neck always? Even one of your cats is self-aware, but does it realize the fact? The essential point is in the realization, isn’t it? The difference between Samadhi and Non-Samadhi, isn’t it? The time the lady realizes that the necklace was always around her neck. For this she has to reflect back, as you said “state of consciousness turned upon itself”, and any act of realization needs some thought process, that is, to realize that you are indeed self-aware and hence attain Samadhi, or am I wrong, and every self-aware thing is in a state Samadhi, always? If you say so, then there is no argument.

Let's keep our terms straight. Self-aware does not mean enlightened or samadhi. It is merely understanding oneself to exist apart from others. It is typical with all humans and many animals. I even heard the other day that the latest research on dolphins proved that they call each other by unique names. That is very interesting.

A typical human is like a man carrying a bucket of water that I referred to. He looks in and sees the reflection of the sun and says "here I am in the bucket." He thinks his soul is inside his head like your QVC here. Same as a college professor leaning back with his pipe and sweater - thinking that his great brain dominates the entire universe and is the seat of his soul.

----OR, the college professor might even imagine that he and his pipe and his sweater does not even exist. Sign up for this class now - it's heavy, man.

The enlightened man has a whole different perspective. He 'realizes' (through samadhi alone)(and this always occurs without thought) that his soul is not in his body at all - not in his head - not the result of thinking. He sees that the sun is NOT in the bucket of water like he supposed. It is an object in another world, and, it is common with all other creatures - that there is only ONE sun - one soul. THIS is enlightenment and SELF REALIZATION. It is seeing the sun directely and for what it is. This total understanding causes a merging so that one is absorbed and BECOMES the eternal soul itself. Bye bye tiny personality with the pipe and books.

This is also the true reason I don't fear death as other thinkers do. The thought of extinction SHOULD bother you quite a bit. But the soul and the world cannot be extinguished as they are uncaused. My 'I am' is here to stay. How can I die if I can't go anywhere? It is not that I have reasoned it out QVC style that nothing exists anyway - yes, something DOES exist and it ain't going anywhere. No reason to fear the demise of THIS particular body. There is more where it came from. The soul and this world you see out there are here to stay.