|
|
|
Author |
Topic |
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 8:48:49 PM
|
quote: Originally posted by alwayson2
what is non-relational self-inquiry?
Almost nooone does self-inquiry right. I only got it after I got it. It only works in hindsight.
I would say not to waste time with self-inquiry. It does work, but only in hindsight.
Hi Alwayson,
I didn't understand this terminology for quite some time, and then finally "got" it, a few months ago.
It's terminology that Yogani developed, and it's actually very clear/simple, once you understand it (like everything, I suppose. ).
Basically:
Non-relational self inquiry is attempting inquiry with thought/thinking mind ... mentally asking "Who Am I?" .... and getting no results, other than limited thinking.
There's no actual "relating" .... just thinking chasing itself, as always.
Relational self-inquiry, on the other hand ... is when there's enough inner silence that there's a silent witness, observing the thought.
At this stage, inquiring "Who Am I?"/"What Am I, Actually?" .... and then *noticing*, rather than thinking about it .... helps the noticing that true silence is what we actually are .... and that we are not any of the many conditioned thought-forms, appearing in mind (I know you know this; I'm just clarify the terminology).
And so: non-relational self inquiry is attempting inquiry when there's too little inner silence/silent awareness ..,. for the practice to do much/any good, in terms of helping to facilitate realization.
Relational self inquiry is, in one way or another, witnessing thoughts ... and thereby experiencing that thoughts appear in awareness ... and that even when there are no thoughts ... awareness/self are always here, now.
For those of us who are experiencing unitive/original awareness ... this could of course be termed "non-relational" as well ..... but in this case, it's "good non-relational" .... and the awareness/oneness is simply maintained ... either as a practice, or as natural occurs by just being.
For more info on this specific model, as well as Yogani's comments on self inquiry in general, please see AYP Self-Inquiry book and/or related AYP Lessons and forum threads.
And, Alwayson ... my experience was actually somewhat similar: by the time I got that "inquiring" was just a means for put attention on/letting attention rest in .... the experiencing awareness (rather than anything in the thought stream) ... I basically didn't need inquiry, per se ... and prior to that point, it was kind of an exercise in frustration!
I hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 8:56:17 PM
|
quote: Originally posted by Christi
Hi Kirtanman,
Absolutely!
There is even a description in the Gita where Krishna gives Arjuna a vision of the true nature of the Self and shows him how reality looks from the perspective of cosmic consciousness.
**
http://www.thenazareneway.com/gita_chapter_11.htm
Christi
Hey Christi,
Thanks for this .... and yes, I'm familiar with it; I've read the Gita a few times, along with a couple of commentaries (including Gandhi's, Eknath Easwaran's, Abhinavagupta's ... and Swami Lakshmanjoo's) ... I just haven't studied it as deeply as I've studied certain other texts (i.e. Shiva Sutras).
For some reason, it seems we just weren't understanding each other, in the other thread (which is fine; it was a good conversation, in any case ... as is this one ... as are all of 'em ... with everyone ... including the ones that don't involve words; humanity is where the unity comes to know itself ... ) ... because it seems we actually see it the same way.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 9:13:14 PM
|
Hi TI,
quote: Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote: Originally posted by Kirtanman "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Here are two quotes from the Gospel of Thomas, from "The Secret Teachings of Jesus", that your words made me look up:
"He said, "A person is like a wise fisher who cast a net into the sea, and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisher discovered a fine big fish. So the fisher threw all the little fish back into the sea, and with no hesitation kept the big fish. Whoever has ears to hear ought to listen" ...
"Jesus said, "There was a rich farmer who had a great deal of money. The farmer said, 'I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, pland and fill my storehouses with produce. Then I shall have everything.' These were the plans, but that very night the farmer died. Whoever has ears ought to listen". Are any of these quotes the preceeding context from which your statement was derived?
Not specifically; I was just referring to that statement itself:
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Jesus said this a few times in the Bible, too ... it's actually an expression from Judaism, that pre-dates Jesus by quite a bit ... and has corollaries in Hinduism.
It has several layers of meaning, a couple of them being:
1. As always, if someone is blocking the intent of what the teacher/author/whoever is saying with their own thoughts ... they don't have "ears to hear" (i.e. they can't take in the message that the teacher/author/whoever intends to convey).
2. The Upanishads say:
"It is not the ear that hears, but that by which the ear hears, that is Brahman the eternal."
... the point being that the consciousness/awareness/spirit who truly hears the teaching is not the ego-mind; it's thinking blocks teaching; it can't receive teaching .... spirit can receive .... spirit is the one who actually *has* the (true) "ears to hear".
quote: Originally posted by Kirtanman
"One of these days, you're going to figure out: 'Adya, I need you like I need a hole in the head!!'"
quote: Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice That is my favorite Adyashanti quote too! :)
:) TI
LOL!
I get that!!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 9:50:29 PM
|
Hi Always,
quote: Originally posted by alwayson2
The truth can be written in one sentence, but he has to write whole books to make money.
The truth is to nonconceptually distinguish between clear/vivid awareness of the NOW and the thoughtstream. See that doesn't fill a book does it?
And although there are no stages in this process (because time literally does not exist as anything else besides a mental concept), people will write whole books on stages just to make a buck.
.... and/or to help others realize.
I would guess that every one of us here has enjoyed greater "awareness of awareness" ... of our true nature .... because of words that others have spoken or written.
If writing a book was a good way to just "make money" ..... a lot more of us would be doing it, I'm sure!
The perception of authors and teachers is colored largely by where people begin to know about them.
I knew Adya when we'd get literally twenty people at satsang, on a slow week; we met at an Odd Fellows Hall, in Mt. View, California ... it was like an echo-y old gym. Twenty people is two rows of folding chairs ... five on each side ... though some people sat on the floor. We all helped set them up .... we all helped put them away.
This was in 2003/2004 .... and Adyashanti started teaching in 1996. He's said there were multiple times when satsang was .... *him*. He'd set up a few chairs ... sit there for an hour ... and if nobody showed ... hey, it was still satsang.
For a number of years *everything* for the sangha was done by Adya and Mukti alone; everything ..... flyers, phones, satsangs, managing retreates, duplicating tapes, dokusan (1-on-1 meetings), finances, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Much of that time, they were both working (he was in the corporate world for a while, and then with his dad's machine shop; she's an acupuncturist).
Hardly anyone outside of the Bay Area had ever even heard of him, until (I think it's called) True Meditation came out ... and even then ... the spiritual market is a lot smaller than many people realize .... and the vast majority of income, when I knew anything about it ... was rolled back into the Sangha, and didn't go to Adya and Mukti, personally.
For a long time, the official sangha photographer was Adya's dad, Larry (you know .... "Larryshanti" .... ), before his parents moved from the Bay Area in (I think it was) 2006.
Adya and Mukti (his wife), lived in an apartment almost the whole time I hung out with them//did satsang with them; he didn't get a house until maybe three years ago ... and it's a very modest house.
I have a friend in California who was part of Adya's weekly poker game; I volunteered at their office in Los Gatos, which was *small*, it only had two rooms; Adya and Mukti shared a small office, and the rest was a combination tape-labeling "production line"/mail order room/reception desk; I visited their newer office, not a lot larger ... right before I moved from California ... and it was right around the corner from Happy Hound ... Adya's favorite hot dog place.
Part of volunteering was sending out the books, CDs and DVDs that people ordered .... and they really didn't sell that many.
And none of that matters, of course .... the externals could be identical for someone "in it for the money" .... and, Adya is starting to "get bigger" now, per his affiliation with Sounds True.
And none of this is said to "defend" Adya; he doesn't need some defending ... more just a bit of a perspective check.
It's easy to make "pass off" comments about people being "in it for the money" .... or writing books just to make a buck, or whatever.
The books are just the media .... just like the words on this forum are the media .... and I don't know of a better use of money that actually or potentially uplifting consciousness.
Simply Put: People like Yogani, and Adyashanti and Tolle actually work their butts off, and usually for quite a long time, if not always ... before there's any "big revenue" .... and if/when there is, it's often put back into the promotion of the teaching ... and not received personally by the teacher or author.
And whether or not we agree with what a given teacher is teaching ... I'm pretty sure we can all actually appreciate their sincere efforts, in promoting the dharma (by any name).
I used to see Adya at least three times a week for a couple of hours at a time ... sometimes more, for a period of three years, or so .... and I've never seen him do/say/be anything other than kind, helpful and utterly authentic.
Adya and Mukti are just regular people; regular people who *could* have been making big bucks, much more comfortably than they were, for a long time, doing something (they were scraping in Silicon Valley, when Silicon Valley was *booming*) .... and they've dedicated their lives to helping the rest of us.
You may not agree with how they do it .... but I'm guessing you can respect them and their efforts, if you stop seeing them any certain way ... and just let what I've written sink in a little.
That doesn't mean anyone who "doesn't resonate" with Adya is wrong in any way .... again ..... purely a perspective check (the intent of which, as with anything I say: to help get limited mind out of the way .... and any time we can realize that maybe any presumption isn't the full story ... the opportunity for that to happen at least cracks open, just a little).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman |
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 10:49:16 PM
|
quote: Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote: Then would these terms also represent that which is neither real nor unreal?
Yes that's right, beyond both. All terms are relative, but they can point to that which is beyond the relative.
The Buddha once said that his teachings were like dreams, but they were special dreams, because they were dreams which had the power to awaken the dreamer.
Christi
Really? 'cause I can't find where the Buddha talks about Cosmic Consciousness.
Adamant |
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2009 : 11:46:21 PM
|
Kirtanman,
Even if you see the Sambhogakaya sitting under a tree, you have no interest in it, because you have realized the nature of the mind yourself. Please read Flight of the Garuda everyone.
Adyashanti/Self/Christ/Buddha is the nature of the mind. Maybe not Christ. Still confused about whether he even lived LOL. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Dec 06 2009 12:37:35 AM |
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 12:24:59 AM
|
quote: Originally posted by Christi ... As I see it, it is not two kinds of karma, but one. When we see an object, the light from the object enters our eye. Then, there is mental recognition of the object (this is a tree, a rock etc.). Then a subtle process of relation happens, which is a colouring of the object according to our latent impressions. ...
Hi Christi :) I agree with that definition too.
How about this one? What if we change the order of creation?
By the time you physically see the object, it is too late, for you have already created it based on your karma.
When a normal person creates a rock, it has certain characteristics like hardness, weight, dimension, texture, color etc and it would hurt if someone through it at you.
When a unity-consciousness-enlightened person creates a rock, the rock has the normal characteristics but it also contains spirit and a state of being joined to everthing else. But I think it would still hurt if someone threw it at you but in a loving/good way.
When a guru, rishi, arahant creates a rock, the rock manifests as pure consciousness therefore the guru/rishi/arahant can pass his/her hand through it, dematerialize it, change it's size or even transport it to the top of the Himalayan mountains.. There is no karma there to limit the initial creation. Further, it would not hurt if someone through that rock at the guru/rishi/arahant because, being part of the rock and having superior control of the forces of nature, the guru/rishi/arahant could change the mass of the object in a blink of an eye, or even make it pass right through them.
See what I mean? Karma is the rule-base by which we manifest our existence. Karma is the stickiness which holds our particular manifestation of the universe together. Karma is one of the ingredients in every thought.
:) TI |
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2009 : 12:42:21 AM
|
Hi Christi and Kirtanman :) I found a document that states that Oneness is an illusion and that there is something beyond, yet to be achieved.
Quote EDJI: All that I am telling you is concepts, causal body, subtle, etc.
They correspond to different type of knowing or not knowing which are universal.
Right now you are in knowing oneness, but that is illusion. Still you have you know it to go beyond it.
Next comes becoming totally stupid--letting go of knowing and awareness. It often feels like death--and it is death to the I Am consciousness. But you have to get used to being nothing. Now you are getting acquainted with the nothingness of the Void, but a deeper nothingness means only darkness and not knowing.
You can feel what it is like--at least for me--by sitting in Padmasana, and letting your consciousness leave your head and go downward into your body into the belly. Focus your mind in your belly. Deep sleep is another similar state.
At some point, you should experience a "dropping" of your conscious center to the belly, and just before it drops, it will feel like your brain is becoming hard and dense as a rock and your awareness of luminous consciousness will disappear. You will pass through a state like sleep where there is nothing at all. There is no you there. No consciousness, no experience.
After you mind drops into your belly, you will instantly become one with everything. All the world will be no different from you. There will be no division between your body and the world. The body disappears and you are the world in total Samadhi. This is your "glimpse" state carried to the ultimate end.
That brief period when the mind is dropping, is the start of forgetfulness that you will need to repeatedly experience. The apparent you passes through it, from one state of knowing consciousness, to knowing nothing, and then perfect Samadhi with everything. You know it as a memory of the passage.
This stage is very important. It must be lived in everyday life too: knowing nothing, not having an opinion or idea. It is one way the world you dwell in is destroyed and transcended.
You are having great fun now in consciousness and I don't want to stop it. Just know it is imaginational, not real. Neither is fogetfulness. No state of body is real. It is a function of you, but no more real than a dream.
By the way, anything said about dropping the center of consciousness to the belly, is also true about that center dropping to the heart. It is just that the Zen way I practiced emphasized the belly rather than the heart.
End Quote
It is from a post by xsmail108 posted in the Jnana Yoga/Self-Inquiry - Advaita (Non-Duality) folder.
If you could find the time to read that discussion I would be very curious as to what your analysis of it would be.
This is a link to the full discussion called: "Self Knowledge and Liberation --Advaita for Yogis-- Parts I and II, Dialogues between Edward Muzika and Rajiv Kapur".
http://itisnotreal.com/Self-Knowled...ialogues.pdf
Thanks. :) TI |
|
|
AYPmod
53 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 12:52:01 PM
|
The Buddhism discussion portion of this thread has been moved to a new thread called Buddhism & Consciousness in the Other Systems section.
AYP Moderators |
|
|
WayneWirs
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 6:02:03 PM
|
Ahh...I'm glad the moderator brought this thread back in line. What I have noticed is that many of the posters to this thread have been focusing on what happens AFTER enlightenment (that or arguing exactly WHAT IS enlightenment).
The way I see the awakening of consciousness though, is like an hourglass. Each grain of sand represents a person. The grains in the upper portion represent people who have not seen through (dis-identified with) their personal self. Those in the bottom portion are those who have. I call people at the bottom "enlightened" but I understand that many of you have a different definition of this term.
What is important though, is in order to get to the bottom portion of the hourglass, you have to drop the personal self. The ego is just way too fat to fit through the neck. This is similar to the biblical saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. But I digress...
Once you drop the personal self, once you fall to the bottom of the hourglass, then you are free to pursue whatever "you" desire. You may decide to teach. You may decide to pursue the cessation of all thoughts. You may decide to merge into the formlessness forever. You may decide to drive a taxicab. You may decide to become a hermit and retreat to a cave. But the point I'm trying to make is, before you can "drop through the neck of the hourglass," you have to drop the personal self.
Most posters on this thread have been talking about what it is like at the bottom of the glass (via quotes from mostly dead people), but they seem to be overlooking what it will take for themselves to get there. I suspect, deep in their unconscious, there is a powerful desire to circumvent the the neck of the hourglass. To circumvent dropping the ego. If you succumb to that desire ("I can THINK my way to enlightenment"), you'll waste years and years of your life. I sure did. About thirty of them.
Anyway, I hope this helps. |
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 6:20:23 PM
|
Hi Wayne,
Good points.
Adamant |
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 7:05:55 PM
|
"This is similar to the biblical saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. But I digress..."
Not to take away from Wayne's post because it was great. But this was a mis-translation. Many of the early translations were done by people who weren't scholars. If you see George Lamsa's translation directly from Aramaic of the Pesh*tta, all three mentions of this phrase in Matthew, Mark, and Luke should have been "It is easier for a ROPE to pass through the eye of a needle. . .". This makes more sense. The word for camel and rope was the same, to be determined by context. Since a rope is similar to thread, the reader would know they meant rope. |
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 7:16:40 PM
|
Dropping ego. There is a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on. Who drops the ego? What ego?
There are pristine and simple methods to go straight to Clear Light Mind where all illusions reveal their own invisible clarity.
Adamant |
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 8:28:33 PM
|
quote: Originally posted by WayneWirs
Most posters on this thread have been talking about what it is like at the bottom of the glass (via quotes from mostly dead people), but they seem to be overlooking what it will take for themselves to get there. I suspect, deep in their unconscious, there is a powerful desire to circumvent the the neck of the hourglass. To circumvent dropping the ego. If you succumb to that desire ("I can THINK my way to enlightenment"), you'll waste years and years of your life. I sure did. About thirty of them.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
Thanks, Wayne.
Agreed, enthusiastically.
If there's a direction to this, it's utter emptying, utter opening, utter release.
You can't bring anything with you ...... not even you.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman |
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 07 2009 : 8:30:54 PM
|
quote: Originally posted by alwayson2
Kirtanman,
Even if you see the Sambhogakaya sitting under a tree, you have no interest in it, because you have realized the nature of the mind yourself. Please read Flight of the Garuda everyone.
Hi AlwaysOn,
I get what you mean by that statement .... but I'm not sure why you're saying it to me (apparently in response to something I said .... I'm just not sure what).
Please clarify, if you don't mind.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 08 2009 : 7:22:09 PM
|
Hey All,
Wayne (Wirs) uploaded a couple of videos of himself, describing enlightenment, his experiences, and some of the pitfalls he experienced.
Check them out here.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2009 : 12:35:29 AM
|
quote: Originally posted by Kirtanman
Hey All,
Wayne (Wirs) uploaded a couple of videos of himself, describing enlightenment, his experiences, and some of the pitfalls he experienced.
Check them out here.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Hey Kirtanman and Wayne :) Thank you for pointing the videos out, and Wayne, thankyou for making them.
It is so nice to talk to egoless people because I know that you will not be offended by my persistence or discoveries. :)
I still have a problem with that definition of enlightenment, actually several problems. That is not the kind of enlightenment I am seeking. I don't even think I would call that enlightenment as you may well have guessed by reading my previous posts. I think it is a step in the right direction and certainly a milestone worthy of praise, but not the whole picture.
To recapitulate, this form of enlightenment consists of disidentifying with the ego and the small self, it produces no siddhis, human thought is still present and the person is still affected by those thoughts (just for shorter periods of time), emotions are more vivid, lust and hunger still exist, there is no ability to manifest form(s), there is a sense of a common divine unity consciousness and a feeling of 'being one with everything'. It seems to be a mild state of persistent satori, to me or at least an indication that person has acheived one of the higher states of consciousness, but not the highest.
The book "Merging With Siva" book by Parasivah Darsana Dayitvam contains a chapter called "The Responsibility of Enlightenment". I tend to believe that the author of this book truly knows what enlightenment is. This is the first book that I've ever read that seems to have a handle on kundalini, the light, Advaita, enlightenment and many interesting points that make perfect sense to me.
For example, in this paragraph, the process to attain enlightenment is to enter into samadhi over and over again, which, according to this book, is merging with the light at the top of the head:
quote:
When a beginning devotee is going up the path, he is spontaneously superconscious now and again. After his first samadhi, he has realized that he has had longer periods of superconsciousness. After his second samadhi, he will be more and more aware of the superconscious mind, and after the next samadhi, he will be even more and more aware of the superconscious mind. However, each will unfold the superconscious mind and superconscious possibilities, powers, etc., differently than another, due to the fact that all have different backgrounds, personalities and such; for though he realizes the Self, the entirety of the basic nature does not change. However, his understanding of his own control of his tendencies, the overall control that he has, and his ability to mold his own life -- that starts a process which transforms him gradually and increasingly as he becomes more and more familiar with the laws of going into and out of nirvikalpa samadhi.
Therefore, isn't a prerequisite of becoming enlightened the ability to enter nirvikalpa samadhi at will? This is not mentioned in your definition of enlightenment and Adya did say "nivikalpa samadhi, big deal".
In this next quote, the author addresses the siddhis or powers ( I guess only you know if you have extra-sensory powers). Also, it makes me wonder why certain western spiritual teachers lack the power to bring others into self-realization:
quote:
What must be really sought after, in order for one as a Self-Realized person to fulfill his destiny of bringing others into Self Realization, is a pure samadhi which will keep the pure teachings of advaita yoga alive on the Earth through the sannyasins. Everything on Earth comes through people. Everything of advanced knowledge has come through people. Self Realization is the pure teachings of yoga attained on the Earth through people who talk, breathe, live just like the Self-Realized soul does.
If he goes into nirvikalpa samadhi and becomes ramified in the psychic powers that come after samadhi, after his first samadhi, his second samadhi, his third samadhi, he will become more intense and will realize new possibilities within himself. If he remains on those planes of the phenomena of the occultism of the mind, then he gains new and fascinating powers of the mechanism of the mind, but he loses the power to bring others along the path into samadhi. If the renunciate maintains a clean samadhi and comes back into the mind, he realizes he has had some extrasensory perceptions, and he does not use them. He does not use them at all unless, of course, he uses them quite naturally, just as naturally as he would enjoy a meal, but he does not dwell on supernatural powers as anything special. He is at every point in time just who he is.
What the renunciate is taught to dwell on would be the next time and the next time he would be going into samadhi. Then he awakens a strong current within himself that can bring others into samadhi. By dropping off unessential powers, he gains one great power. That is the one great power that those who have realized the Self want, the power to bring others into Self Realization. You can only do that by having first attained a pure Self Realization yourself and going into samadhi again and again and again. Remember, the sannyasin's destiny is this: having realized the Self, bring others into the pure realization of the Self, and teach other sannyasins to go into samadhi and come out with a well-balanced mind, without deviating one way or another on the psychic planes.
Here is mention of the light. I bring this up because the characteristic to identify enlightenment is seeing that light 24 hours a day. Only you would know if this is your experience.:
quote:
After his first nirvikalpa samadhi, the renunciate'sconcentration and his practice of concentration should be easier. His first step in practicing samadhi would be to concentrate upon one physical object, that is if he cannot see his inner light. And if his mind is confused, he won't be able to see the inner light, like before he went into his first samadhi. Only after he has gone into samadhi many, many, many times, where his whole body becomes filled with light, will he then see his inner light all the time, twenty-four hours a day. But at first he won't. He will have his first breakthrough, but he won't see the light all the time. ...
The light, really, is the friction of the superconscious mind against the conscious and subconscious mind. In my way of looking at it, it is an electrical friction. The odic forces and the actinic forces merging causes light and sound.
So, when he sees this brilliant light right in his head -- more brilliant than he has ever seen, intensified brilliance -- he tries to find the center of it. When he finds the center of it, again trying to open up that light like a camera lens, he will then come into a state of consciousness called Satchidananda, a state of pure consciousness, a state of pure bliss, savikalpa samadhi. Here he won't be in a brilliant light anymore. Above him it will look like he is looking way up in the sky, into outer space, and the color of it will be a whitish blue. That will be the akasha he will be in.
Here is mention of manifestation and the power to create worlds. Please note that it does say that this is undesirable, however it does indicate that that capacity does exist and it also indicates that these are the signposts along the path ( I guess Adya must have parking lots manifested in his head :) ):
quote:
In the akasha, he would be able to go into all sorts of psychic phenomena. We don't want that. We don't want to utilize the akasha in that way, because then we cause the growth of gross matter in the subconscious mind, which is capable of imprinting into the akasha things that we want to happen. Then we could go in the akasha and see them. We will see those forms change shape from what we have, from our own subconscious, imprinted in the subconscious. Then, through the power of the light, it takes form in the akasha, and we can have a little world of our own going around on the inside, and that is called psychism or occultism. We don't want that. Nor do we want to tune in with anybody else who is also in the akasha, because that leads us away from the purity of yoga.
In this quote it indicates that there are several levels of consciousness in between the first step (light) and the last step. If a person does not reach the highest step, this presents many problems. Also, this text indicates that the sushumna is at the top of the head, it does not end at or protrude from the brow. I wonder what the consequences of "not knowing these instructions" is:
quote:
As we have previously studied, there are seven different states in the superconscious mind, seven different states and usages. The very first is the light. And the pure consciousness state that we just discussed is the seventh state. All the others we want to avoid. It is not that it wouldn't be possible to get into them and develop them, but we want to definitely avoid them, because they are, shall we say, deterrents to the purities in the Self. So, we shall avoid them by going from basic inner light to a more intense light and popping out into a pure state of consciousness. The sannyasin will still have an overall consciousness of the physical body. As a matter of fact, when he is looking down at the physical body, it might just appear like a shadow to him. It is not advisable for him to look down at the physical body in consciousness, for that will lead him down into the sixth or fifth plane of consciousness, and we don't want to be there in the superconscious. Then other things will intervene, and he won't achieve the samadhi. He will have to come out and start over again. So, these investigations we want to avoid, because they are not necessary, ever, though they are not impossible. When he is in his pure state of consciousness, then he has to look for the continuation of the kundalini force or, shall we say, the continuation of the nerve currents that house the kundalini force. In conscious-mind terms, that will look like a tube or a nerve current which would be issued right from the top of the head.
In this state of pure consciousness, like in outer space, he tries to find just one nerve current right at the top of the head. When he finds this nerve current at the top of the head, he is taught to concentrate on it from where it begins at the top of the head right up to the end of it, and soon he finds the end of it. The experience of experiences. Of course if he has a mishmash in his subconscious mind, he won't be able to hold this pure state of consciousness. The subconscious mind in its power and intensity of this contemplation will begin picking up, and he will be coming right back into outer consciousness. But if his subconscious is fairly clean and under control, then he will be able to hold it, and he will hold it quite naturally. It will be a natural state to him after Self Realization.
In this next quote, there is an indication that an enlightened person is not affected by anything. He would not be afraid of big cats, for example.. Further, this next quote says that if you want to go visit some place, you just enter Satchidananda and "see it". Another note in red, the intellect is replaced with Satchidananda which is more like a super-mind.
quote:
What is life like after realization? One difference is the relationship to possessions. Everything is yours, even if you don't own it. This is because you are secure in the Self as the only reality, the only permanence, and the security that depends on having possessions is gone. After Self Realization, we no longer have to go into ourself. Rather, we go out of ourself to see the world. We are always coming out rather than trying to go in. There is always a center, and we are the center, no matter where we are. No matter where we are, no matter how crude or rotten, the vibrations around us will not affect us. Curiosity is the final thing to leave the mind, which it does after Self Realization. The curiosity of things goes away -- of siddhis, for example. We no longer want power, because we are power, nonpower, unusable. And we don't have the yearning for Parasiva anymore; we don't have the yearning for the Self. And Satchidananda is now to us similar to what the intellect used to be. If we want to go to a far-off place, we go into Satchidananda and see it. It is that easy. Samyama, contemplation, is effortless to you now, like the intellect used to be; whereas before, samyama was a very big job which took a lot of energy and concentration. Therefore, before Parasiva we should not seek the siddhis. After Parasiva, through samyama, we keep the siddhis we need for our work.
This next quote contains an answer to the question "Where should I go after enlightenment", which, by the way, Adyshanti says that you don't have to go to a monastary or seclude yourself.
quote:
For ultimate freedom, everything has to go away, all human things, possessions, love, hate, family, friends, the desire for attention and community acceptance. The sannyasin renounces the world, and then, if his giving up is uncompromisingly complete, the world renounces the sannyasin. This means the world itself won't accept him as it once did as a participant in its mundane transactions of a job, social life, home and family. Earlier friends and associates sense his different view of their existence and now feel uncomfortable with him. Slowly he joins the band of hundreds of thousands of sannyasins throughout the world, where he is joyously accepted. All must go, the past and the future, and will naturally depart as the great realization deepens, as it penetrates through all parts of the body and all states of the mind. This alone is one good reason that family people and noncommitted singles are never encouraged to strive for realizations higher than Satchidananda, and then only for brief periods now and again at auspicious times. For family people, grihasthas, to go further into themselves would be to earn the bad karmas, kukarmas, of subsequent neglect of family dharma, and to lose everything that the world values.
Here it is mentioned that enlightenment is very easy to fall out of, so it is not permanent (learn something every day). So, if you have the feeling that you've finally arrived, it is not a good indication of enlightenment:
quote:
Many people have flashes of light in their head and think they are totally enlightened beings, then let down in their sadhana and daily worship to later suffer the consequences. Enlightenment brings certain traditionally unwanted rewards: attention, adulation; one becomes the center of attraction, knows more than others and can exist on words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, for a long time, even after the light fades and human emotions well up and new mixed karmas build. He then may become known as having attained the erratic human behavior of the "enlightened" person. This is totally unacceptable on the spiritual path. Once enlightened, or "in-light," even to a small degree because of daily sadhana, stay enlightened because of daily sadhana. Once having intellectually realized Vedic truths and become able to explain them because of study and daily sadhana, then realize these truths by intensifying the daily sadhanas, lest the remaining prarabdha karmas germinate and create new unwanted karmas to be lived through at a later time.
As well, egotism is always a danger:
quote:
Diligence is needed, lest higher consciousness fall unknowingly on the slippery slide of ignorance into the realms of lower consciousness, of fear, anger, resentment, jealousy, loneliness, malice and distrust. The faint memories of the beginning enlightenment experiences still hover, and while now in lower consciousness but still emulating the higher qualities in personal behavior, the now unenlightened claims full benefit for the previous enlightenment. Shame! This is because he did not maintain his disciplines after enlightenment. He let down and became an egocentric person.
Here is the link to that chapter: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/res...s_ch-49.html
I hope that I would motivate you to read that whole chapter. This is definately more like the classical form of enlightenment/self realization that has been portrayed throughout the ages in various spiritual teachings. It also accounts for many of my experiences and resonates deeply with me. I can relate to it.
I don't think it's right to reduce the meaning of the word 'enlightenment' like western Oneness teachers have done and then proceed to lay claim to it or teach others how to attain that state. It just doesn't seem like the real thing to me. If someone tells me that they are enlightened/self-realized they had better be ready to prove it to me in the classical definition of the word. (or not, I mean, who really cares, just so I have the correct practices to follow and the proper sign-posts that tell me how far I am from my goal).
According to the "Merging With Siva" book, I believe I broke the Brahman seal 20 years ago but "I" fell back down because I didn't know what really happened and didn't know any better. Hopefully this will not happen to you guys. :)
Again, thank you for the discussion. I appreciate it.
:) TI
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2009 : 2:30:25 PM
|
Hi TI....
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I just have to ask....
What exactly are you hoping to acheive by sharing all this (everything you have posted in this particular thread)? Are you hoping to have others change their definition of enlightenment? If so, what difference would that make to you? You don't seem to be practicing much of the AYP system so are you hoping that the AYP system would be "re-vamped" to include what you personally think it should? I don't really care at all, I am just curious as to why you would spend so much time and effort trying to convince others that "their" enlightenment is not true enlightenment as you (and perhaps a few others) define it. To me it would seem that it should be more important for you to ACHEIVE your version of enlightenment so that you could actually talk from a place of experience instead of spouting words written by others that seem to point in a direction you wish to point. Again, please don't take offence, this isn't meant to be offensive....I am just curious as to what you are hoping to acheive by sharing all this.
Love, Carson
Back into my cave now |
|
|
WayneWirs
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2009 : 6:10:05 PM
|
Hi TI. Honestly, I truly don't care what dead people may or may not have said, simply because I can't talk to them and clarify their points. I prefer to talk with live people. Really. Anyone can find a quote on anything. The problems come from interpretation, translation, then editors that don't like the original, and cultural differences. So please, don't waste your time posting quotes to me--I simply don't read them. Just talk to me, I like that much better.
Pointing back to my post on the hourglass analogy: No matter what you call enlightenment, to get to those stages that you seem to be so attached to, you are going to have to get through the neck of the hourglass, and the only way through is by dropping your personal story. Once you are through, you can then pursue anything you like. But here's the thing. All those people at the top of the hourglass love to talk about what the people at the bottom of the hourglass are doing, but they don't bother slipping through and finding out for themselves. It is sooo much easier just to talk and talk and talk about them than to slip on through and find out what is really going on down there.
So come on down! Just see your personal self, see how it is screwing up your life and how it is BLOCKING you from seeing the Light (which BTW, I talk about constantly on my blog) and then drop the personal self so you can slip through to the bottom of the hourglass. THEN focus on creating worlds, reading peoples minds, teleporting to Caprica, or playing God. But you've got to drop your personal self first. It's as simple as that.
And on that "big cat" in the video... I actually thought I heard a kitten meowing in those woods to my right and was concerned for its well being as I was quite a ways from civilization. The thoughts that shot through my mind while I was looking over there were, "Can I catch it? Is it alright? Do I have anything to feed it?" Looking at the video I can see how that could have been misinterpreted, but like I said in my blog post, I just turn the camera on, talk, and turn it off. No editing.
Added a few minutes later: I just watched the "cat" portion of the video again and this ironically points out my problem with interpreting other peoples words without the back-and-forth of true dialogue: I said "I thought I heard a cat and I'm out here in the woods." What you interpreted was I was afraid of a big cat (mountain lion?), but what I meant was, domestic cats don't belong in the woods.
This is a perfect example of why talking is so much more effective at finding the truth than just reading or quoting someone else's words which can easily be misconstrued. |
Edited by - WayneWirs on Dec 09 2009 6:57:53 PM |
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2009 : 9:35:18 PM
|
quote: Originally posted by WayneWirs ... So come on down! Just see your personal self, see how it is screwing up your life and how it is BLOCKING you from seeing the Light (which BTW, I talk about constantly on my blog) and then drop the personal self so you can slip through to the bottom of the hourglass. THEN focus on creating worlds, reading peoples minds, teleporting to Caprica, or playing God. But you've got to drop your personal self first. It's as simple as that.
Hi Wayne, You know, it is very funny, but just today, I was reading about exactly what you are talking about, the ego dying, in "Merging With Siva"!
Now I'm getting a better understanding for sure. :)
I know it's another quote, but it's really the first time I've ever heard of this put into these words. It is definately a turning point and major milestone. And I can see how the "I" or "Me" perspective would change. It also resonates with Tolle's suicidal moment when he asked the question "Who is unsatisfied with my life?" as that moment is probably when his ego died. Have a read: link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/res...s_ch-48.html
quote:
Ultimately, you begin to go through the harrowing experiences of past karma with your eyes firmly set upon your ultimate goal: Self Realization. As you live your life in service to mankind, reprogramming your subconscious and facing all of the things that you didn't face fully through your many past lives while working with your emotions and intellect, finally you come to the crucifixion of the ego. This happens when your last experiences have begun to fade and you no longer see yourself as a "Mr. Somebody" who came from some community somewhere, who is of a certain nationality and who, incidentally, distinguishes himself from all other people because he is on the path to enlightenment and he knows a lot of people that are not.
This great spiritual pride of the personal ego finally is crucified. It is put on the cross of man's own spiritual discernment. The death of the ego is a tremendous experience. You go through the dark night of the soul and feel that your family, friends and even the Gods have deserted you. During this time, you do not see light anymore. You see blackness all through the body, as all of the accumulated experiences of the many, many lives come in on you and you are not even aware where your awareness is in the mind. You can't figure it all out. It happens too rapidly. Then finally: "I am That. I am." You burst into the Self God.
Is not your "Dark Night of the Soul" described in that quote? It is great to have that documented as you did on your website.
And now, the experience that Adyashanti went through makes sense to me too, especially because of the reference to the reincarnations and erasing the full brunt of their impact on the ego. (still doesn't mean I believe anything he says, though, I just understand his experience a little better.)
So it would seem that the modern western 'Oneness' experience might be the death of the ego, which is a major turning point, which is a realization of the "Self God". Now, if this is all correct, I can see and believe the characteristics of this event, and it would explain why non of the more advanced stages of self realization are present at that moment. I think it would be like being born again, or being a baby at first.
So everything falls into place as a new understanding develops. It is not a final state of enlightenment, it is the beginning (or perhaps an essential step, maybe not the first one..) But it sure sounds like the 'shift of consciousness' that Yogananda Paramahansa Yogi talks about in "Autobiography of a Yogi" and the final dissolution of the "I Am" by Nisargadatta.
Oh, yes, I thought you thought you heard a mountain lion, judging by your body language and the look on your face.. The reason I pointed that out was to verify that in fact, you were being affected by some emotion. It is said that Buddha would have no reaction to having a saint on his left and a murderer pointing a sword at him on his right. I can see now that these characteristics must be developed, that full self-realization must be achieved through stages.
Once I've finished reading "Merging With Siva" I look forward to reading your documentation about the three weeks when you started watching your thoughts and solidified the transition..
:) TI
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2009 : 10:10:11 PM
|
Hi TI,
The words describing authentic enlightenment vary; the essence of the experiencing is the same.
You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently.
Neither are you necessarily far from it; it boils down to willingness to let go of any identification with abstractions .... including the one you think of as "myself" (Tibetan Ice).
That's why silence, stillness ... pure awareness, free from the disturbance of thought ... is key.
Without it, you're using the same tools you've been using all your life to bind yourself ..... to bind yourself some more.
No answers are found in words; the answers are in your own experiencing ... the dissolution of "you" into the nothing, the all ...... all the way back here, liberated from the bondage of words, ideas, abstractions and concepts.
Nothing anyone else says matters at all.
Not me, not Wayne; not Adyashanti, not Yogani; not Nisargadatta, not monks in Hawaii.
No one else can wake you up; no one else can dissolve your personal me.
Just.
Let.
Go.
It's only worth everything.
quote:
Therefore, isn't a prerequisite of becoming enlightened the ability to enter nirvikalpa samadhi at will?
One definition of enlightenment could be:
Living *as* nirvikalpa samadhi.
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is simply original awareness, free of the abstractions of subject, object and perception.
A much simpler way to say this, is:
The dropping of the personal self.
By looking too hard for what you think it is, you can miss what it actually is.
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is just yet another term for the clear light of the awareness that is the true subject; that's all.
I AM is what is happening right now .... no abstractions, no limits, no distinctions, no ideas.
In true liberation, even human conditioning is experienced as utterly free.
Utterly.
All descriptions are general pointers, only.
Your experience may well be different.
You'll only know it when you are experiencing it.
If you think you've experienced it .... you haven't.
quote:
The curiosity of things goes away -- of siddhis, for example.
And you wonder why some of us seem disinterested in siddhis?
quote: So, if you have the feeling that you've finally arrived, it is not a good indication of enlightenment.
A point that's been clarified many times, in this thread alone:
If there's a you/me there ..... it's not enlightenment.
Enlightenment is the result of the dissolution of the me-idea.
quote:
I don't think it's right to reduce the meaning of the word 'enlightenment' like western Oneness teachers have done and then proceed to lay claim to it or teach others how to attain that state.
I utterly agree with this statement.
Ed Muzika outlines this quite nicely, Here.
quote:
just so I have the correct practices to follow and the proper sign-posts that tell me how far I am from my goal.
With all you've heard and read about the pitfalls of limited mind, why do you continue to let it tell you what is useful, or not?
Information is not useful.
Only experience is useful.
What's real?
Find out.
I hope this is helpful.
I hope you can open your heart and let these words resonate within you.
Enlightenment isn't about any one of us .... enlightenment is about all of us ... those experiencing it, those not experiencing it yet.
If you (anyone) had any idea how important it really is .... you'd stop debating ... you'd stop citing books ...... you'd do whatever it takes to simply be here ..... because it's not only about you.
Enlightenment is not just our greatest opportunity.
Enlightenment is our greatest responsibility.
Are You Willing?
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Dec 09 2009 10:16:15 PM |
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2009 : 11:57:27 PM
|
quote: Originally posted by CarsonZi
... Funny, we both had the same idea..
:) TI
|
Edited by - Tibetan_Ice on Dec 10 2009 11:06:47 PM |
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2009 : 12:18:54 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote: Originally posted by Kirtanman ... You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently. ...
Excuse me, but how would you know? Do you have any siddhis or visions that tell you this?
quote:
Neither are you necessarily far from it; it boils down to willingness to let go of any identification with abstractions .... including the one you think of as "myself" (Tibetan Ice).
That's why silence, stillness ... pure awareness, free from the disturbance of thought ... is key.
I don't think this is correct anymore. How does deep silence crucify the ego? What is the metaphysical reasoning behind your statement? Do you mean, you ignore it long enough and it will just go away on it's own?
Again, here is a quote from the monks: link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/res...s_ch-48.html
quote:
As you live your life in service to mankind, reprogramming your subconscious and facing all of the things that you didn't face fully through your many past lives while working with your emotions and intellect, finally you come to the crucifixion of the ego. This happens when your last experiences have begun to fade and you no longer see yourself as a "Mr. Somebody" who came from some community somewhere, who is of a certain nationality and who, incidentally, distinguishes himself from all other people because he is on the path to enlightenment and he knows a lot of people that are not.
I bolded that last part because I believe your statement, this statement:
quote:
You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently."
indicates that you've distinguished yourself from me as not being on the path to enlightenment. Therefore, you haven't let go of your ego either. Right?
:) TI
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2009 : 12:55:59 PM
|
Words are very powerful, like mantras. Use them sparingly or disputes inevitably arise. Nothing good comes from disputes.
Adamant |
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2009 : 7:45:58 PM
|
You win TI....
I'm out
Love, Carson |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|