|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 18 2010 : 7:35:30 PM
|
Hi Anthem,
Thanks for the additional comments; helpful as always!
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
Hi Kirtanman,
Just in case it comes across differently in the posts above, just to clarify, none of my comments are meant to be taken to be about Jed himself, I’m just using him to express certain a perspective on the evolution of human consciousness in general.
Ah; okay. That's exactly how I was taking your comments, actually. Thanks for clarifying.
(It would be fine if they were about Jed, too; I'm cool, either way -- but per my previous responses, I was taking your comments to be about Jed, specifically, at least for the most part).
quote:
If you want to endorse him by all means go for it, as I hope I made it clear earlier on, everyone has a unique perspective which can add to the totality of awareness and Jed certainly has some great pointers.
No worries; I do, and I am (endorsing Jed McKenna, with unreserved enthusiasm). I think we all do that, in one way or another (recommend, or at least reference, the resources we feel can be beneficial) ... I just tend to do so a bit more enthusiastically than most.
quote:
I think the difference in our perspectives can be boiled down to that (and please correct me if I am misrepresenting your words) that you see a definable point where “enlightenment” occurs and a person can hence forth be called “enlightened” and I see it rather as a continuum of human consciousness evolution.
I think I may understand where the apparent difference in definitions stems from: I'm referring to enlightenment from the standpoint of the self (or not-self, if you prefer; the wholeness of awareness has no parts, and so, can be called pretty much anything, I suppose). From that standpoint, self is either known, or self is not known; self is experienced in-as actuality, or sense-of-self is still lost in delusion. There aren't any levels or gradations to it. However, this only applies at the level of awareness itself; it does not apply to any levels with manifestation or form, even extremely subtle form.
And so, I don't even know that we disagree.
I do agree, per your further clarification below, that from the standpoint of the body-mind, there is further opening, expansion, growth, etc., even after enlightenment.
However, the most fundamental shift which occurs, ever, is the shift from identifying with delusion, even to a very minor degree, and knowing ourselves as our true nature of unbound awareness.
I have zero attachment to the term enlightenment, per se; it's just that most people have some sense of what that term means, at least as a general indicator.
For instance, I'm comfortable saying that Nisargadatta, Adyashanti, Jed McKenna and a few others are enlightened, in the sense that I'm saying "if it's enlightenment you're interested in, "aka" knowing your true nature, well, these teachers impress me as being among a small handful who express enlightenment clearly, directly, authentically, and from the standpoint of living from that place of knowing their own true nature, and therefore, they can help you know yours."
Now, if someone else wants to say that enlightenment can't be defined, or it's not a final point, etc. etc. ..... in terms of manifestation and form, I absolutely agree; both Adyashanti and Jed McKenna refer to the few years of integration which occurs on the levels of form after enlightenment. At the level of formless awareness, though, truth has been realized: reality is One, and Self is known to be That, is living from and as That.
It's like an on-off switch; dead-or-alive, awake or asleep.
On the levels of form, yes -- there are essentially infinite levels.
quote:
With less and less identification occurring to the point of unperceivable amounts as a person moves more deeply into unity (non-dual) perspective 99.9% of the time. The person will continue to evolve all the while it is a collection of thoughts inside abiding awareness that knows itself as That.
I'm thinking maybe we agree then, but I'm not 100% sure (maybe only 99.9% ..  ). Please let me know if you can tell (Anthem).
For instance, I'm not completely clear on your use of the term "person". In general, I agree that something like a person continues and evolves, but after enlightenment it's a far different type of thing. As I've said often lately: "mind is a sense and not a self." Person-hood is the same way. And so, yes, I agree the forms within awareness, which might be called the personality, or whatever, evolve ... but if one really feels like one *is* a person, enlightenment hasn't happened; another "definition" of enlightenment could be "the dissolution of the idea of being a person."
.... yet "normal person-ness" seems to persist, too; from the outside, it may not seem much different at all; from the inside ...... only infinitely.
"I am large; I contain multitudes"
~Walt Whitman
"One moment I was a dark, fearful narrowness; the next, I was not contained by the Universe."
~Rumi
"Truth hath no confines."
~Herman Melville, Moby Dick
"The body is the perceptible."
~Shiva Sutras
quote:
So from my perspective, a person can realize their true nature, that they are abiding awareness, be in a state of non-duality and see it as such 90% of the time and have complete knowing that they are not the “I” but still have concepts (and thoughts) where the mind is still subtlety identified. Emotional reactions, especially strong ones are good pointers to identified areas.
I agree with this; I think all of us who have come to, or passed, this phase know the reality of it. Again, I agree fully: on the levels of manifestation, enlightenment very much "phases" in.
And, I understand people define, and/or won't define certain terms, such as enlightenment, to the point of making them nearly meaningless.
To be clear: it's not the terminology I'm concerned with; it's communication of the actuality.
In the context of this thread, I'm saying: Jed McKenna is a guy who obviously knows his true nature all the way (he couldn't write as he does, if he didn't, in my estimation), and so, I highly recommend what he has to say about it.
If you're not comfortable calling that condition (knowing our true nature) "enlightenment", that's fine by me.
You just seemed to be saying that Jed appears to be at the lower, or early, end of the AYP enlightenment milestones spectrum, and I just wanted to be clear that I strongly (and respectfully, as I emphasized, last post) disagree, and that I would say that his enlightenment, and all actual enlightenment, is beyond any spectrum from the side of absolute awareness.
If you're speaking of the spectrum from a manifested standpoint, I'd still say that Jed certainly seems to be off the far end (higher end) of the spectrum as well. He may not seems blissful all the time, but as he points out in the books "nothing transcends my transcendence."
Emotion is quite different when experienced from non-dual awareness; it's like flavor; not good or bad ... just varied.
And it's not like Jed rants and raves all that much .... in fact, he doesn't really rant or rave ever. He uses a little profanity at times, and writes like a regular person, but also seems to maintain equanimity essential always, and says, as I have in the past, of a randomly-selected normal moment "all I can say is 'thank you, thank you, thank you!'" ... and describes his ongoing state of being as a "mixture of love-gratitude-awe best described by the term agape".
quote:
All humans have moments of enlightenment, but for most they are brief breaks in the clouds between very extended periods of identification.
And which are thus, not usually recognized as enlightenment.
If "I experience awareness" .... that's not enlightenment.
If "awareness experiences" .... that's enlightenment.
(Per my definition, etc. etc. ..... )
quote:
For those with a predominantly non-dual perspective, it can be the opposite, extended periods of “enlightenment”, with brief periods of identification all the while knowing they are That.
But you see the key difference ......... "all the while knowing they are That."
The difference that unmakes all the difference!
In (what I'm calling unenlightenment) ..... true nature isn't known even when it's experienced.
In (what I'm calling enlightenment) true nature isn't lost even when there's temporary constriction of even a large part of attention around form.
quote:
The brief periods of identification will continue to occur less and less over time unless there is an expressed desire to hold on to certain concepts and beliefs.
Once true nature is known, it's pretty much impossible to hang onto concepts or beliefs at all, I'd say. The fictitious entity who held them is gone.
And so, (per this entire dialog) .... all cool; again: I'm not caught up in the definition; the condition I'm referring to can even be called something different than enlightenment, if you, or whoever, wants.
I'm simply trying to communicate that authors/teachers who are writing/teaching from the standpoint of knowing their own true nature are still relatively rare, and thus, highly valuable.
quote:
Duality - all duality - happens within non-duality.
Non-duality is what we are.
I see it this way too.
quote:
If the body-mind's conditioning kicks up some irritation, so what?
Body-minds do stuff like that.
quote:
Agreed, no problem, but still points to some subtle identification with a concept, in other words seeing just one side of an object's nature rather than both sides.
I'm still not quite getting this "both sides" thing .... can you maybe clarify what you mean, a bit?
I've just literally never heard of it, prior to this discussion.
Basically, the union of opposites occurs, in my experience, when it's experienced that perceiver, perceiving and perceived are all one/one activity ... the movement of one awareness.
Awareness doesn't have preferences; body-minds do; hence irritation manifesting.
Awareness is free; free enough to experience irritation if irritation arises.
Now if there's truly a limited-I experiencing the irritation, that's different; but it's the limited-I that's the issue, not the irritation, in my view.
I would say that irritation results from the conditioning of the body-mind, and is part of the tapestry of manifestation. If there's identification, it's on the part of the body-mind, not the awareness we are. That's how the fully enlightened can be irritated, and still be fully enlightened.
I've never heard of anyone who lived through a body-mind that was free from all conditioning (genetic, biological, physical, psychological, cultural, religious, familial, etc.) ... and I'm not sure what such a condition would be about, anyway.
If liberation happened at the level of form, no one would be liberated. Ever.
Awareness is inherently free; the unenlightened are just not conscious that they are the underlying awareness.
None of us is the tiniest iota different from one another; the only apparent difference is the amount of the range of our awareness-consciousness that we are consciously living from-as.
As Jed McKenna says:
"The difference between us isn't that I'm enlightened and you're not; it's that I know it, and you don't."
And
"I don't have something you don't; you believe something I don't."
quote:
Personally, I don’t go around thinking about what enlightenment is or isn’t very often, I stopped chasing that word and find it to be a limited label that is often pre-maturely claimed by many and often misleading in general to people.
I actually agree with this, and it's the same for me. For me, it (enlightenment, and discussion thereof) tends to come up here at the forum; nowhere else. I guess that's because people's sense of what the term (enlightenment) means, and points to, varies so much.
I agree it can be problematic (the term enlightenment).
I'm talking about simple truth-realization, by any name.
I'm fine with that; as I've said: my whole purpose in mentioning it here, was to emphasize my view that Jed McKenna is one of a small handful of truth-realized authors, and whom I highly recommend per his truth-realization (which I'm comfortable calling "enlightened"), and both his clarity, and his modern-culture-friendly manner of expression.
quote:
I don’t see enlightenment as you are or you aren’t, if that is the definition you are working with, I can see how you do and it is all good, we can have different perspectives here.
I'm good with that.
As you indicated, there's a point where true nature is known, and where it's not lost, even when there's some flux in emotional or energetic states.
Authors and teachers who are stable enough in that condition, whatever we might call it, are relatively rare, and thus, highly valuable, in my estimation.
I'm just saying "Jed McKenna is one of those, and a very clear, direct instance of teaching from that condition .... and so, if you read him with an open mind, you may find it very, very beneficial."
Of course, everyone's mileage may vary; I'm simply making the recommendation.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
 |
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 18 2010 : 7:50:45 PM
|
Hi Parallax,
Good question, and the confusion may be due to my premise, not anyone else's.
I'll try to clear it up.
quote:
Originally posted by Parallax
Hey K-man,
I know I'm a bird-brain  , but how exactly is abiding non-duality different from abiding Unity? And how exactly is it beyond the states described in AYP?
My understanding of Unity was that is was the merging of subject and object into the realization/experience of all as Self/Awareness; and in this state of knowing/experiencing self as Pure Awareness there is no attachment to body-mind/objects of perception/etc...how is non-dual awareness different?
I'm not necessarily schooled on the details, so I know I might be missing something...
Peace
Certain traditions, including the Yoga Sutras, making the distinction between union of form, and dissolution of the distinctions of form.
And so, when subject, object and perception unite, that's what I've been referring to as Unity.
When the distinctions dissolve, that's what I've been calling Non-Duality.
Basically, if there's enough distinction to be able to say "subject, object and perception" have united ... I've been calling that Unity.
If there's no distinction, I'd call that Non-Duality.
Looked at a slightly different way:
If the two aspects of the Yin Yang symbol unite, I'd call that Unity.
The Yin Yang symbol itself, I'd call Non-Duality.
Basically, I've been referring to Non-Duality as the One in which all else is contained; that which is beyond all.
Unity is All, Non-Duality is Beyond All.
(Per the way I've been using the terms).
In recent lessons, I seem to recall (I'd have to review them to be sure) that Yogani has described the Self/enlightened condition/process as abiding non-dual awareness, or similar terms.
I was referring to the original Enlightenment Milestones model created by Yogani long back, which is what I took Anthem to be referring to.
My point was simply:
If there's a spectrum ..... any spectrum .... enlightenment (as I'm using the term), aka abiding non-dual awareness ..... is beyond that spectrum, because all spectrums arise within it.
And so, I was referring to how abiding non-dual awareness relates to the experience of a spectrum, which inherently occurs within duality.
And again, I do feel Yogani has described the fullness of abiding non-dual awareness quite clearly; I was simply responding to Anthem's specific mention of a spectrum, and what I understood to be the original Enlightenment Milestones spectrum (which, as I think I said, I'm pretty sure Yogani has expanded on, in recent times, too).
Basically, what I'm calling enlightenment is identical for all; I'm not saying that Jed McKenna is beyond "AYP Enlightenment", or anything like that; enlightenment is enlightenment in my estimation, and Yogani knows it and articulates it as well as anyone.
I hope that clears things up; if not, please let me know, and I'll try some more.
Apologies if I was confusing!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Parallax
USA
348 Posts |
Posted - Jun 18 2010 : 9:18:26 PM
|
Thanks Kirtanman, I appreciate your help
As is frequently the case, I think my confusion was semantics based....with a little bird-brained-ness thrown in...
The way I had been viewing it was that once subject, object and perception unite there is no distinction anymore...hence essentially the same as Non-Duality...I guess that's the way I had interpreted how the term was used in AYP (Unity = abiding non-dual awareness); ie, if the Yin and Yang were to unite that would process would be "unification", but once united are the Yin Yang symbol, no longer separate....
Unity is All, Non-Duality is Beyond All...I was thinking of Unity as the "one" uniting with what is Beyond All and in doing so becoming All...the distinction between subject/object, the one/the All/the Beyond All cease to exist..."That" is "That", but "I am That" "You am That", "Everything Am That"..."That" is all there is?
I'm not trying to be a pain, or nitpick on semantics, I guess I had always thought of Unity and Abiding Non-Duality interchangeably, so your distinction kind of threw me off a little...since I haven't experienced it yet either way, guess it doesn't much matter...just trying to understand the roadmap a little better.
Thanks for taking the time K-Man,
Much Love |
|
|
|
amoux
United Kingdom
266 Posts |
Posted - Jun 19 2010 : 05:18:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
... but if one really feels like one *is* a person, enlightenment hasn't happened; another "definition" of enlightenment could be "the dissolution of the idea of being a person."
Ouch! That rings true. What about those of us who experience the repeated 'irritation' of "oh shoot, forgot again"? IOW, repeated forgetting and remembering - or perhaps better, awakening and going back to sleep? From reading a fair amount of Adyashanti and Nisargadatta recently, I'm wondering is there a continuum of this process? What I'm trying to get at is whether there is always one, 'blinding' moment where the illusion of the individual self is seen through, or can this be a gradual process. Nisargadatta seems to indicate in his case it was an ongoing thing - Adyashanti (and others) seem to indicate that there is a single, overwhelming experience (albeit with varied or no prior awakenings). I'd be really interested to hear what you think about this. And I appreciate that there is still work to do even after the dissolution of the personal self.
On another point - Wayne Wirs' recent blog post about the dry and dusty non-dual teachers made me think of this thread - because a couple of years ago, that's exactly how I felt about Jed McKenna - although as mentioned previously, the response is different now.
|
Edited by - amoux on Jun 19 2010 07:22:11 AM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 19 2010 : 7:41:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Parallax
Thanks Kirtanman, I appreciate your help
As is frequently the case, I think my confusion was semantics based....with a little bird-brained-ness thrown in...
The way I had been viewing it was that once subject, object and perception unite there is no distinction anymore...hence essentially the same as Non-Duality...I guess that's the way I had interpreted how the term was used in AYP (Unity = abiding non-dual awareness); ie, if the Yin and Yang were to unite that would process would be "unification", but once united are the Yin Yang symbol, no longer separate....
Unity is All, Non-Duality is Beyond All...I was thinking of Unity as the "one" uniting with what is Beyond All and in doing so becoming All...the distinction between subject/object, the one/the All/the Beyond All cease to exist..."That" is "That", but "I am That" "You am That", "Everything Am That"..."That" is all there is?
I'm not trying to be a pain, or nitpick on semantics, I guess I had always thought of Unity and Abiding Non-Duality interchangeably, so your distinction kind of threw me off a little...since I haven't experienced it yet either way, guess it doesn't much matter...just trying to understand the roadmap a little better.
Thanks for taking the time K-Man,
Much Love
Hey Parallax,
No worries at all!
It occurred to me, that logically, Unity and Non-Duality *are* effectively synonymous; I've just spent a lot of time immersed in systems (including my own, Living Unbound) which make the distinction between the two terms (Unity and Non-Duality) in very specific ways.
Basically, Unity (as I've been using the term, per the systems mentioned above) is the "most real" end of the reality spectrum, which has perceived disunity and complete partiality on one end, and universal unity on the other, and which comprises all levels of manifestation, from grossly-physical to unimaginably subtle.
However, Non-Duality, being absolute, and only One, contains all .... Unity, Disunity, everything in between, "the whole shebang".
In experience (again, per the definitions above), Unity is when everything feels unified when all distinctions are dissolved ..... relative to when things don't feel that way.
In Non-Duality (again, per those definitions), there's just the natural state, where there's non-arising of distinctions and relativity in the first place, and thus, everything and all experiences are equally "it" .... which is why states like irritation are not at all problematic; they're as much "it" as ecstatic-love-bliss.
Mind can't "get" this, because mind "tops out" at Unity.
Awareness/Wholeness just *is* it, however "it" displays at this moment ("I am what is happening right now", to quote Wayne Wirs yet again. ).
However, again, just in terms of simple logic and semantics, I "get" why Unity and Non-Duality seem synonymous; in terms of logic and definition, they do to me, too.
I've just been so immersed in the "technical terms" of various philosophical systems for so long, that it's likely me who's got the bird-brain thing goin' on!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- Those definitions may seem kind of convoluted, but they're literally structured to help us understand the nuances of extremely subtle, unified and non-dual experiencing, when we experience them .... and what might not make sense to the mind while reading, will likely make a lot more sense as kind of a "vibe" (aka bhav, aka feel) thing, in experience. It did for me, anyway.
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jun 19 2010 11:12:32 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 19 2010 : 8:16:11 PM
|
Hi Amoux,
quote:
Originally posted by amoux
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
... but if one really feels like one *is* a person, enlightenment hasn't happened; another "definition" of enlightenment could be "the dissolution of the idea of being a person."
Ouch! That rings true. What about those of us who experience the repeated 'irritation' of "oh shoot, forgot again"? IOW, repeated forgetting and remembering - or perhaps better, awakening and going back to sleep?
Very much a known and normal part of the process; as far as I know, we all go through it for a time; I sure did.
It's normal enough that Adyashanti talks about it specifically, in Emptiness Dancing.
quote:
From reading a fair amount of Adyashanti and Nisargadatta recently, I'm wondering is there a continuum of this process?
Yes.
quote:
What I'm trying to get at is whether there is always one, 'blinding' moment where the illusion of the individual self is seen through, or can this be a gradual process.
There may or may not be such a blinding moment, but it's never in isolation from years of sadhana before it, and years of integration after, if it happens at all.
"There’s no such thing as instant enlightenment any more than there’s such a thing as an instant baby."
~Jed McKenna
quote:
Nisargadatta seems to indicate in his case it was an ongoing thing - Adyashanti (and others) seem to indicate that there is a single, overwhelming experience (albeit with varied or no prior awakenings). I'd be really interested to hear what you think about this.
Nisargadatta and Adyashanti actually have somewhat similar stories .... with Adya's sadhana actually being the longer one. If one reads Emptiness Dancing, his "enlightenment story" at the beginning of the book could lead one to think in terms of a single experience, but in the interview (with Tami Simon, of SoundsTrue) at the back of that same book, Adya very much puts that illusion (that he had a single "enlightenment experience") to rest, by recounting years' worth of his sadhana process in great detail ... which included at least two major awakening experiences, which were several years apart.
quote:
And I appreciate that there is still work to do even after the dissolution of the personal self.
More like integration that happens than work that is done, but yes ... change continues on the levels of change. It's just that the changeless is finally known as Self, creating the "peace which passes all understanding", as the Bible says.
That phrase is meant very literally: it's the peace that is specifically beyond the realm of understanding, where only relative peace is possible.
quote:
On another point - Wayne Wirs' recent blog post about the dry and dusty non-dual teachers made me think of this thread - because a couple of years ago, that's exactly how I felt about Jed McKenna - although as mentioned previously, the response is different now.
Yes, Wayne and I have a bit of a comment-dialog going, per that post, and per Jed McKenna (see the comments for that post of Wayne's, for details).
And yes, Jed is a LOT less arid than a surface review of his quotes (even in those well-made quote videos, linked in this thread) .... per the following quote, from his first book (spoken to a gathering of his students, outdoors, at night ... and so, he's presumably referencing what is happening in that same moment he's making the statement):
“I see perfection and beauty and absolute delight everywhere and in everything. The touch of the slightest breeze, the sight of a single star through cloud-swept skies, the howls of coyote pups in the distance, and the sheer glory and beauty of it all is enough to tear me to shreds, and all I can say is thank you, thank you, thank you!”
~Jed McKenna
"Me, too!"
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jun 19 2010 11:16:16 PM |
|
|
|
amoux
United Kingdom
266 Posts |
Posted - Jun 20 2010 : 05:52:55 AM
|
Thanks, Kirtanman. I read "The End of Your World" a few weeks back, and then ordered Emptiness Dancing and True Meditation (as often, reading bass-ackwards!)
There's a nice synchronicity going on here - last night I was reading Emptiness Dancing (I'm about half way through) - and read this:
"It can come about suddenly, all at once, and it can also come about gradually, much like butter melting. Now if we want to call butter melting a progression, I suppose we could, but I think saying that butter melts is something other than a progression. You're not getting anywhere. You're actually getting nowhere fast. So it can happen either way. It can happen in a gradual or a sudden way."
Then read in Nisargadatta "With some, realization comes imperceptibly, but somehow they need convincing. They have changed, but they do not notice it. Such non-spectacular cases are often the most reliable".
And this morning read your post
Interesting what you write:
"There may or may not be such a blinding moment, but it's never in isolation from years of sadhana before it, and years of integration after, if it happens at all."
In Byron Katie's case, then presumably the sadhana beforehand was the years of suffering she went through? Incidentally, "Losing the Moon", if you can get it, is a fascinating read - written very much from the Advaita Vedanta perspective. |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 20 2010 : 7:30:34 PM
|
Hi Amoux,
quote:
Originally posted by amoux
Thanks, Kirtanman. I read "The End of Your World" a few weeks back, and then ordered Emptiness Dancing and True Meditation (as often, reading bass-ackwards!)
There's a nice synchronicity going on here - last night I was reading Emptiness Dancing (I'm about half way through) - and read this:
"It can come about suddenly, all at once, and it can also come about gradually, much like butter melting. Now if we want to call butter melting a progression, I suppose we could, but I think saying that butter melts is something other than a progression. You're not getting anywhere. You're actually getting nowhere fast. So it can happen either way. It can happen in a gradual or a sudden way."
Then read in Nisargadatta "With some, realization comes imperceptibly, but somehow they need convincing. They have changed, but they do not notice it. Such non-spectacular cases are often the most reliable".
And this morning read your post
Interesting what you write:
"There may or may not be such a blinding moment, but it's never in isolation from years of sadhana before it, and years of integration after, if it happens at all."
In Byron Katie's case, then presumably the sadhana beforehand was the years of suffering she went through? Incidentally, "Losing the Moon", if you can get it, is a fascinating read - written very much from the Advaita Vedanta perspective.
Er .... more like: I utterly forgot about cases like Katie's, when I wrote what I wrote.
Which, fortunately, simply engenders a slight modification:
"There may or may not be such a blinding moment, which can occur at the beginning, middle or end of the sadhana process, but it's never in isolation from at least a small handful of years of overall sadhana and integration, it seems, if it happens at all."
"Per that", I would say that Tolle, Katie and Ramana all had a "blinding moment" realization-type experience at the very start of their sadhana process.
The point of my comment wasn't so much to make any black-and-white statements, but rather to make the point that it's *never* about single experiences, no matter how dramatic they may be, nor when they occur.
Saying that someone "instantly realized enlightenment" is kind of like saying that someone "instantly realized being in great physical shape" .... it just doesn't happen that way (per Jed McKenna's awesome and oh-so-pertinent "instant baby" quote, in my last post, and the first post in this thread).
Ultimately, it's all about "unbecoming false" as Jed McKenna says; everything else is just support for, or detraction from, that process.
Hence my enthusiasm for Jed McKenna's books; he makes this point clearly, repeatedly, and irrefutably.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- Thanks very much for the book recommendation! I'll order it, if I can find it, for sure.
|
|
|
|
WayneWirs
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 10:30:28 AM
|
quote:
"Per that", I would say that Tolle, Katie and Ramana all had a "blinding moment" realization-type experience at the very start of their sadhana process.
My two cents: I don't know what sadhana means, but I suspect that the three above had a collapse of their false identities (the personal self ( http://waynewirs.com/category/enlig...rsonal-self/ )) for the exact reason that they WERE NOT spiritual seekers. In other words, Realization came as such a shock to their system that their egos collapsed (or more likely, were repressed (buried) by the conscious mind).
If you've been studying nonduality, enlightenment, whatever, then you kind of know what to expect. Indeed, you've been preparing your mind for it, so the realization of enlightenment won't have the SHOCKING power that it had for the above three.
Most probably don't want to hear it, but I would think that a gradual integration of the unity state (after the personal self drops away) is a much more healthy path (though far less dramatic and won't sell as many books) than the OMG-what-just-happened-to-me variety.
So on this point, I have to disagree with Jed M's "instant baby not happening" (or whatever he said). It does happen to some people (Tolle, etc.) but it probably won't happen to you since if you are reading this (a "student" of enlightenment), you've already prepped your mind--you see your little brother hiding behind the curtain getting ready to jump out and shout "Boo!" It won't startle you enough to drop/repress the egoic conditioning.
Again, just my opinion. |
Edited by - WayneWirs on Jun 21 2010 12:34:38 PM |
|
|
|
nandhi
USA
362 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 10:33:07 AM
|
aum
divine kirtanman,
thank you for sharing jed mckenna's wisdom!
jed mckenna's writings is similar to the siddhar sages, most of whom were not 'educated'. with an enlightened consciousness, they wrote the awakening truth in its heart's expression of simplicity and directness. the words of wisdom you shared are alighting!:)
gratitude!
aum |
Edited by - nandhi on Jun 21 2010 12:04:35 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 1:46:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by nandhi
aum
divine kirtanman,
thank you for sharing jed mckenna's wisdom!
jed mckenna's writings is similar to the siddhar sages, most of whom were not 'educated'. with an enlightened consciousness, they wrote the awakening truth in its heart's expression of simplicity and directness. the words of wisdom you shared are alighting!:)
gratitude!
aum
Beautiful; thank you Nandhi, and yes ...... gratitude!!
AUM
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 2:57:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
quote:
"Per that", I would say that Tolle, Katie and Ramana all had a "blinding moment" realization-type experience at the very start of their sadhana process.
My two cents: I don't know what sadhana means, but I suspect that the three above had a collapse of their false identities (the personal self ( http://waynewirs.com/category/enlig...rsonal-self/ )) for the exact reason that they WERE NOT spiritual seekers. In other words, Realization came as such a shock to their system that their egos collapsed (or more likely, were repressed (buried) by the conscious mind).
If you've been studying nonduality, enlightenment, whatever, then you kind of know what to expect. Indeed, you've been preparing your mind for it, so the realization of enlightenment won't have the SHOCKING power that it had for the above three.
Most probably don't want to hear it, but I would think that a gradual integration of the unity state (after the personal self drops away) is a much more healthy path (though far less dramatic and won't sell as many books) than the OMG-what-just-happened-to-me variety.
So on this point, I have to disagree with Jed M's "instant baby not happening" (or whatever he said). It does happen to some people (Tolle, etc.) but it probably won't happen to you since if you are reading this (a "student" of enlightenment), you've already prepped your mind--you see your little brother hiding behind the curtain getting ready to jump out and shout "Boo!" It won't startle you enough to drop/repress the egoic conditioning.
Again, just my opinion.
Hi Wayne,
A good and pertinent two cents; thanks.
By the way: "sadhana" is just the overall spiritual or yogic path or process that someone follows from "zero to enlightenment".
And I think we're all pretty much on the same page, here.
The context of Jed's statement "there's no such thing as instant enlightenment, any more than there's such a thing as an instant baby", was in reference to those who teach that "instant enlightenment" is available, and/or indicate that they realized "instant enlightenment" themselves.
I'd be very surprised if it's possible, per the dynamics of releasing one's personal story, and how thoroughly that personal story is integrated, at every level of consciousness.
And so, I certainly agree with the "shock" aspect of Katie's and Tolle's experience, and that their single experiences were consummately powerful, but there were also years of contributing circumstances before-hand, and years of integration, after, for both of them.
Complete release of one's personal story, including fully living from the resulting freedom and in the resulting reality, seems to involve a process for all.
The context for discussing it here the way we are, was Amoux's question to me, vis a vis Nisargadatta's few years of sadhana, and Adya's seeming "insta-lightenment" (which was cleared up per our discussion here, and Amoux's further reading in Emptiness Dancing).
You've stated on your blog, Wayne (and I believe here, as well; I've quoted you here, I know) that one of your reasons for discussing your enlightenment, is to help people understand that it's available.
My comments about "instant enlightenment" were offered in that same spirit.
If someone is looking for "the experience" .... they can have an amazing, ego-nuking experience, and think (literally) "I'm enlightened!! Woo-HOO!!"
I know that this can happen, because I did this. But only ten times or so. At least.
(Seriously, though.)
Subsequent involuntary re-immersion into believing in concepts invariably led to the "Ah crap, that wasn't it after all!!" dynamic that some of us know all too well.
There finally came a point, though, where sense-of-self as personal story just couldn't be believed in, any longer; as Adyashanti says "there's nothing for it to stick to".
For me (quote-unquote ) this just kind of happened; I didn't even really notice it, at first; I was in the "I am what is happening right now" flowing for at least a week or two, before there was even a noticing that something very fundamental had shifted.
Since that time, there have been some minor constrictions of attention, but they're not like they were in the past, at all. Since that shift, it's more like: if you notice you're squinting a bit, or that you're not breathing in a natural relaxed manner, you relax your eyes, or relax your breathing.
It feels like that; "mind" and/or "me" (aka "sense-of-self"), if it seems to be around at all, is worn very loosely, and has nothing to do with the unbound awareness I actually am, any more than a momentary itch defines anyone.
For quite some time, I couldn't completely release the "me story"; now, there's not enough ability to believe in it, to bring it back.
I'm good with that.
Like Adyashanti, I had a few major experiences, that were big shifts, but it was the release of personal story over time, and the integration of living free from personal story (which continues, of course) that I would consider essential to enlightenment.
Whereas the "big experiences" felt big when they happened, in retrospect, they don't feel essential. Though, apparently, they were for me, or they wouldn't have happened.
However, there are quite a few enlightened people who never had "big deal" experiences, and are living unbound from personal story, aka "enlightened", too.
And so, a clearer way to say what I said about enlightenment never being instant, might be:
Probably best not to look for enlightenment in a single experience, since that's very likely not to be the complete "story". Enlightenment (aka releasing the concept of "me", and all its concept-effects) seems to involve a process over time, in one way or another, for all of us.
Yogani emphasizes that it's practices, inquiry and the process of time overall, that facilitate living from enlightenment ... and I'd agree with that, as well as, in that context, Jed's "instant baby" quote.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jun 21 2010 2:59:50 PM |
|
|
|
amoux
United Kingdom
266 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 3:10:38 PM
|
Hi Wayne - thanks for this:
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
[Most probably don't want to hear it, but I would think that a gradual integration of the unity state (after the personal self drops away) is a much more healthy path (though far less dramatic and won't sell as many books) than the OMG-what-just-happened-to-me variety.
This makes good sense.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
[So on this point, I have to disagree with Jed M's "instant baby not happening" (or whatever he said). It does happen to some people (Tolle, etc.) but it probably won't happen to you since if you are reading this (a "student" of enlightenment), you've already prepped your mind--you see your little brother hiding behind the curtain getting ready to jump out and shout "Boo!" It won't startle you enough to drop/repress the egoic conditioning.
Sometimes I wonder whether all the reading I do (and enjoy) is simply a way of 'putting off' dropping the personal self
One thing which is the current refrain of this character I'm playing is "it has GOT to be simpler than it seems". Of course, this could be utter frustration on my part
BTW - I enjoy your blog, and the mp3s are very effective. |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 3:36:55 PM
|
Hey Amoux and All
quote:
Originally posted by amoux
Sometimes I wonder whether all the reading I do (and enjoy) is simply a way of 'putting off' dropping the personal self
I have been going through this for quite some time now...wrote about it a bit here: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....chTerms=maps
Personally I had been reading dozens and dozens of spiritual books a year and I eventually got to a point where I could reiterate everything that was said in these books, but I had no experiential knowing of it in my heart. I eventually decided it was time to "discard the maps" and start living the territory myself. I probably have made many mistakes since this decision that could have been prevented by reading about the territory I was in in someone's book, but I regret none of these mistakes. Each one has helped to solidify and strengthened my practice through experience and has helped me to Live my own Truth. I found (others experience may and will likely be different) that I was so busy trying to match my experience to what others said was to happen on this journey to Self that I wasn't living my own Life. And I was suffering over it too. So eventually I got to a point where I said to myself "enough reading about life, time to start living it".....and I am still here....haven't picked up a book in a long time. I'm sure that at some point I will go back to reading again, but for now, I am plenty happy just Being Life itself instead of reading about others Being Life and trying to emulate their experiences.
Love!
 |
|
|
|
WayneWirs
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 4:13:27 PM
|
@Kirtanman: I agree with everything you said (and boy, do you saaaaaay it).
@amoux: Glad the blog, mp3s, and experiences have helped.
@amoux & CarsonZi:
I'm a big believer that the mind needs to grasp it, but eventually, your heart has to feel it. For example, when you read that my girlfriend just broke up with me, that is a hell of a lot different than when YOUR girlfriend breaks up with YOU.
I've been stressing this for awhile on my blog, my issue with many nondual teachers either discounting the felt sense of oneness, or ignoring it all together: "Oh, that is just an experience and thus isn't real." They are only half right. Feeling Life living/moving (without attachment to it or the personal self) is the other half. Maybe if I go sleep with THEIR girlfriend, they'll understand that it's more than just a dream.  |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 4:46:53 PM
|
Hi Wayne....nice to read you here again (as I talk about not reading anymore, hahahaha  )..... I always enjoy your perspective and the way you express your experience. Thank you for sharing of yourself with us.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
@amoux & CarsonZi:
I'm a big believer that the mind needs to grasp it, but eventually, your heart has to feel it.
I don't know that the mind can EVER grasp "it". Trying to grasp "it" with the mind is like trying to hold water in your hand....an exercise in futility (this is just my experience though....your milage may vary ....perhaps you have webbed fingers  ).
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
For example, when you read that my girlfriend just broke up with me, that is a hell of a lot different than when YOUR girlfriend breaks up with YOU.
Exactly. It's one thing to "think you know how 'it' feels", it is quite another to actually FEEL 'it' yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
I've been stressing this for awhile on my blog, my issue with many nondual teachers either discounting the felt sense of oneness, or ignoring it all together: "Oh, that is just an experience and thus isn't real." They are only half right. Feeling Life living/moving (without attachment to it or the personal self) is the other half.
I don't take issue with anyone's teachings as everyone's perspective is at least a bit different, and everyone will explain their perspective a little differently. Some people are better with words then others. "Enlightenment" doesn't necessarily change that. And certain types of people resonate with different types of teachings too. The words that may push one person over the edge into the endless abyss of Wholeness, may just annoy another. Everyone is different and will require at least a slightly different approach to "Self (no-self) Realization." What works for one will not always work for another. No point in "taking issue" with someone just because you don't resonate with their teaching style.
But in regards to what you are actually saying in the above quote:
Experience is both real and unreal. It is real when it is happening in "real-time", and then it is unreal once it is over (in the past). Only when the experience is "abiding" is it truly "real". At least that is the perspective here
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Maybe if I go sleep with THEIR girlfriend, they'll understand that it's more than just a dream.
Hahaha.....sounds like a plan....just stay away from my wife
Love!
|
Edited by - CarsonZi on Jun 21 2010 4:50:09 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 6:59:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by amoux
One thing which is the current refrain of this character I'm playing is "it has GOT to be simpler than it seems". Of course, this could be utter frustration on my part
Hi Amoux,
Another fave Jed quote of mine, which I don't have handy, so I'll paraphrase:
"Truth is completely simple. Illusion is infinitely complex."
It's true.
There's actually nothing complex about it (the "journey without distance" as A Course In Miracles terms it; from the "unreal to the real", as the famous Sanskrit blessing states), and we're getting "right down to it" in this thread:
Releasing the illusion of being our personal story is the whole game.
"Per Jed" ...
"It's not about becoming true. It's about unbecoming false."
This means releasing all concepts, and living in from and as the actual.
The discipline and dynamics of daily practices help a lot, as does ongoing observation, but the very root of it all is:
The sense-of-self we were all conditioned with as small children, and which is reinforced every moment of our lives is fictitious; a concept; not real.
A lot of related teachings ("the world is illusion", etc. etc.) are largely misunderstood.
Whether "the world" (a concept) is real or not is rather pointless; the important part is: our conceptual evaluation of everything, including our sense of self is utterly made up. That's what "the world is illusion" means -- experiencing life via the distortions of conditioned conceptual evaluation is illusion. Drop the concepts, and voila! .... reality, enlightenment, peace and liberation.
And, as I said in another post, yesterday, in another thread: this doesn't mean simply releasing attachment to conceptual belief in surface consciousness; a lifetime of memory layers must also be eradicated, and inner silence / witness state / pure awareness {<- increasing amounts of experience of pure awareness} are the light which literally and actually dissolves those shadows.
There are other ways to get to the shining of the light of our pure awareness which dissolves the shadows of conceptual delusion, but every efficacious spiritual practice is either a means to pure awareness, a support for pure awareness, or a step toward pure awareness -- aka this that we each and all ever are now, actually.
When this (lifelong confusion of the conceptual with the actual) is recognized and released, everything including sense-of-self, is simply restored to its natural place and function.
Basically, we've all been disproportionately leaning into the objective (the forms of life and mind), all our lives.
"Mind" (another concept), is simply a conceptual cutting instrument, designed to separate the good (the which I believe benefits Me & Mine) from the bad (that which I believe might harm Me & Mine).
Let Go.
"Release the tiller" as Jed says.
Let life drive.
As enlightened Jesuit Priest Anthony de Mello points out:
“Suffering points out that there is falsehood somewhere. Suffering occurs when you clash with reality. When your illusions clash with reality when your falsehoods clash with the truth, then you have suffering. Otherwise there is no suffering.”
I hope this is useful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 7:20:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Maybe if I go sleep with THEIR girlfriend, they'll understand that it's more than just a dream.
Hahaha.....sounds like a plan....just stay away from my wife
Love!
I'm not quite sure I get what you guys are saying, here.
The concepts related to "my wife", "their girlfriend", sexual jealousy, etc., relate to reality ...... how exactly?
And yes, kinda-sorta rhetorical question, but I still wonder about that particular set of examples (talk about the "grand-daddy of all concepts"; that one's almost up there with "I am who I think I am"! ).
I'll be nice and give you a bit of an "out", though:
Someone once asked Adyashanti (and his wife, Mukti, who were giving a satsang together) ... directing the question to Adya:
"Well, if you love everyone, why don't you have an open marriage?"
Adya shrugged, and said, "I dunno; conditioning probably."
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2010 : 7:57:07 PM
|
Hey Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Maybe if I go sleep with THEIR girlfriend, they'll understand that it's more than just a dream.
Hahaha.....sounds like a plan....just stay away from my wife
Love!
I'm not quite sure I get what you guys are saying, here.
The concepts related to "my wife", "their girlfriend", sexual jealousy, etc., relate to reality ...... how exactly?
I can't speak for Wayne, but I can tell you that I was ENTIRELY joking here..... I do not think of Deanna as "my" wife nor do I get many "jealous feelings" happening here anymore. None that are identidied with for long anyways She is free to do as she pleases (like I had any say anyways right? )....which makes Life all the sweeter as she chooses to be with me (imagine that! Hahaha). How lucky am I!?!?!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And yes, kinda-sorta rhetorical question, but I still wonder about that particular set of examples (talk about the "grand-daddy of all concepts"; that one's almost up there with "I am who I think I am"! ).
I'll be nice and give you a bit of an "out", though:
Someone once asked Adyashanti (and his wife, Mukti, who were giving a satsang together) ... directing the question to Adya:
"Well, if you love everyone, why don't you have an open marriage?"
Adya shrugged, and said, "I dunno; conditioning probably."
Indeed.
Love!
|
|
|
|
amoux
United Kingdom
266 Posts |
Posted - Jun 22 2010 : 05:05:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
When this (lifelong confusion of the conceptual with the actual) is recognized and released, everything including sense-of-self, is simply restored to its natural place and function.
Basically, we've all been disproportionately leaning into the objective (the forms of life and mind), all our lives.
"Mind" (another concept), is simply a conceptual cutting instrument, designed to separate the good (the which I believe benefits Me & Mine) from the bad (that which I believe might harm Me & Mine).
Let Go.
"Release the tiller" as Jed says.
Let life drive.
........
I hope this is useful.
More than useful Dhanyavad _/\_ |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Jun 22 2010 : 10:45:58 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
I do agree, per your further clarification below, that from the standpoint of the body-mind, there is further opening, expansion, growth, etc., even after enlightenment.
However, the most fundamental shift which occurs, ever, is the shift from identifying with delusion, even to a very minor degree, and knowing ourselves as our true nature of unbound awareness.
So using your definition of enlightenment being the awareness that the reference point of “I” does not exist, no me, just unbound awareness, from my perspective this is just one shift that can occur along the way.
Unity experience is a massive shift in perspective as well and comes later in the AYP enlightenment milestones until it is a 24/7 experience along with divine outpouring of love/bliss 24/7. Not 24/7 until an emotional reaction comes along and that is experienced as hate, anger, sadness etc. but actually 24/7 without interruption.
This certainly creates a different perspective of the world where no experience can be perceived as negative, total acceptance leading towards total bliss/ love. I think very few reach this point but it would come later on after seeing our selves as unbounded awareness.
Anthem wrote:
quote:
Agreed, no problem, but still points to some subtle identification with a concept, in other words seeing just one side of an object's nature rather than both sides.
quote:
I'm still not quite getting this "both sides" thing .... can you maybe clarify what you mean, a bit?
I've just literally never heard of it, prior to this discussion.
Sure happy to elaborate, apologies for not being clear.
So let’s use Jed’s description from his 2rd book "Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment" since you were asking earlier for examples and I will take his writing literally not being able to know for certain how it was meant. He may very well be joking and love Californians but it serves as a useful example.
So he talks about hating LA and California and Californians in general throughout the first chapter. This is an example of a fixed view on one end of something. In other words, he is seeing LA and Californians from a negative perspective and experiencing the emotional reaction of “hate” that goes with having a fixed (opposite of open minded) perspective.
Hating Californians is equivalent to hating something within the Self, within myself, since it is all Self. Outside, from my perspective, is just a reflection of something within. This view can be corrected and once I see the positive side of LA and Californians, I will no longer suffer, it feels “good” again. My true nature is no longer clouded over with an emotional reaction of hate, anger, sadness etc., and love/ bliss continues uninterrupted. I no longer hate (contract) on something within myself, all is me, all is One, loving all aspects of creation is loving all aspects of myself within and without.
From my perspective, it is possible to perceive any object/ experience in duality in a positive or negative way (not to mention everything in between). If I have a fixed perspective on anything either exclusively positive or exclusively negative, I will suffer at some point until I see both the positive and negative and hence have a balanced perspective.
Reactions like hate, anger, sadness etc. indicate that there is a viewpoint that can be corrected, the reward being more bliss/love experience until it is 24/7.
Unity perspective, the way I perceive it, is the ability to no longer fixate on one viewpoint (either positive or negative) and see both sides (union). When a person brings true unity perspective to all experiences and objects, the body does not feel and live an emotional reaction such as hate, sadness, jealousy etc., there is no physiological response of hormones etc., no contraction, and the perceiver remains in a state of peace/ bliss 24/7.
quote:
Basically, the union of opposites occurs, in my experience, when it's experienced that perceiver, perceiving and perceived are all one/one activity ... the movement of one awareness.
From my perspective I see this too. I see all experiences and objects in creation as reflections of the Self. Until I love it all (all objects & experiences) I deny something within and there is not complete union. In Don Miguel Ruiz's words, "until the final judgment", a judgment being synonymous with having a fixed negative or positive perspective on something, we won't know 24/7 bliss/ love.
All objects and experiences must be perceived as the One, joined in union. A negative emotional reaction with someone/ something is a sign that this hasn't happened, a sign of a perspective that hasn't been joined in union, a perspective that still holds a fixed view on one side of the equation of duality.
I hope this makes sense. |
Edited by - Anthem on Jun 22 2010 10:53:28 PM |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Jun 23 2010 : 1:41:57 PM
|
Anthem, I don't know where you've gotten your view from... I don't recognize it from all our discussions earlier here in forum?
What I've heard from most teachers we've mentioned through the years (Adyashanti, Byron Katie, Eckhart Tolle etc etc) is rather that enlightenment is to be fully human - with all expressions humans have! Emotions doesn't disappear - we just don't attach to them anylonger. They can come and go as they wish - which they probably will do, just as thoughts will continue to come and go, it's not a totally quiet mind after enlightenment - and WHILE emotions and thoughts are showing up, there's a 24/7 joy, peace, outpouring divine love etc etc. It's both - as long as we're having the human body vehicle to travel in.
Can you absolutely know it's true that "A negative emotional reaction with someone/ something is a sign that this hasn't happened"?
|
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Jun 23 2010 : 3:32:11 PM
|
Hi emc,
Where did I write that enlightenment isn't being fully human?
I see enlightenment as an infinite evolution towards total acceptance of the Self on a universal level. There will still be preferences, once emotional reactions come and go in a short periods of time (like minutes or less as opposed to hours days) they are no longer a concern, bliss remains uninterrupted. If however an emotional reaction causes a 3 week disruption in life, and you are living that emotional state, it is worthwhile to inquire into it in order to let go of the fixed view.
If there is no attachment there is no concern.
How can you tell? You can't, only the experiencer can know if there is a reaction from a fixed view or not. A fixed view is a form of attachment in itself. If I am attached to a concept about how my hair should look, I will suffer when it doesn't match my concept until I see it in a more balanced way. If an emotional reaction comes in a flash and then leaves just as quickly, no concern. You may still prefer to fix your hair at some point but if it doesn't happen you are ok either way. |
Edited by - Anthem on Jun 23 2010 3:42:27 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 24 2010 : 12:15:48 AM
|
Hi Anthem,
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
I do agree, per your further clarification below, that from the standpoint of the body-mind, there is further opening, expansion, growth, etc., even after enlightenment.
However, the most fundamental shift which occurs, ever, is the shift from identifying with delusion, even to a very minor degree, and knowing ourselves as our true nature of unbound awareness.
quote:
So using your definition of enlightenment being the awareness that the reference point of “I” does not exist, no me, just unbound awareness, from my perspective this is just one shift that can occur along the way.
Okay.
Just to be clear, though, that condition (abiding non-dual awareness) is referred to as the ultimate, the supreme, the ground of being, etc., by many traditions.
It has been, and is confirmed as such, in the experience of many, including myself ("myself quote-unquote", of course. ).
I am, and am referring to the unbound awareness which precedes and supersedes all change and all form; it is the ultimate, supreme (Anuttara, in Sanskrit) condition of unbound awareness. It is everyone's true nature; unenlightenment involves projecting a screen of illusory thought-forms and memories, per conditioning, which obscure it. However, it's no less "here" for any of us; every experience, every object requires it.
It (the unbound awareness I'm referring to) is primary. Literally. Actually. It is the subject, the self which can never be an object. It is the source of all (as Nisargadatta mentions repeatedly in I Am That).
And please note: I'm not going back into a discussion of defining enlightenment, or disagreeing with how you feel best about defining it (Anthem).
I'm simply emphasizing the point, as strongly as I can: I am referring to changeless unbound awareness. Our true nature really is changeless, unbound (limitless) awareness. This is one thing that the mystical (direct experience based) systems of all traditions agree about, and one thing that all mystical sages and teachers testify is the case. I'm adding my voice to theirs as well: changeless unbound awareness is our true nature.
Knowing this in experience is what I'm calling enlightenment, because it's true and real (far more so than anything which changes), and knowing our true nature in ongoing experience is, if nothing else, the most common definition for enlightenment.
I agree with you that there are essentially limitless shifts that can occur along the way. I'm just saying that as far as I know, and as far as I've experienced so far, this condition (knowing self as changeless unbound awareness) isn't one of them. Might it change? Sure, anything's possible, I suppose; it just seems very, very unlikely. As in: you *might* wake up no longer sure that you're a male (Anthem) ... but it's pretty unlikely.
As discussed, change, integration, whatever you want to call it, continues at the levels of form, all form ..... and, as I've said, this all even accelerates, because, in enlightenment, all that life energy that went into preserving the dream-world of ego and its errors is freed for the natural, creative expansion of awakened humanity.
It's really very simple at essence:
"I'm not who I thought I was, who I've been conditioned all my life, I was. I'm actually just awareness. I have a body-mind, but am not the body-mind. What I actually am is inherently, utterly free. Wonderful. Let's continue."
And so, when we really shift into unbound awareness to the point the fundamental switch flips and we know I Am That ... it doesn't seem to be unknowable. For that to happen, I, or any one else who experiences this as ongoing reality, would have to literally re-identify with form in some way; to feel as though "I am my thoughts, feelings, memories, etc."
I went through that for quite a while; as discussed in this thread, this seems to be part of the process for everyone. However, the shift of sense of self into the no-self-reference of knowing unbound awareness is not only quantitatively different, but qualitatively different.
And so, no, it's not just one shift among many; it's the last shift, from the standpoint of not-knowing our true nature. Shift and change continue, but are experienced as occurring within, and being subsidiary to, our true nature of unbound awareness.
quote:
Unity experience is a massive shift in perspective as well and comes later in the AYP enlightenment milestones until it is a 24/7 experience along with divine outpouring of love/bliss 24/7.
With a bit of allowance for definitions, the Unity Consciousness I've referred to precedes the shift into knowing self as unbound awareness, which I'm not entirely sure is covered in the AYP Enlightenment Milestones (I'd have to review them; I don't remember, offhand).
Per the terminology and experiences I'm referring to, Unity Consciousness is the "meta" or cosmic (universal) version of savikalpa samadhi (with thought-forms), Non-Dual Awareness is the cosmic (universal) version of nirvikalpa (without thought-forms) samadhi. Abiding Non-Dual Awareness (what I'm calling enlightenment) is the cosmic (universal) version of sahaja (innate, spontaneous, ongoing) samadhi.
One of the reasons I resonate so strongly with Kashmir Shaivism, is that it articulates what I'm talking about simply and clearly, and its articulation fits exactly with my experience.
In Kashmir Shaivism, and Living Unbound, universal unity consciousness is at the very upper end of the second (middle) level, where mind-consciousness "tops out" (reaches its ultimate expansion) ... it is the upper limit of Shakti (consciousness; the energy-forms emanating from original awareness).
Abiding Non-Dual Awareness is the highest level; the actual experiencer of all, ever-now. Knowing our true nature as this original formless awareness - Shiva; and thereby, being able to say in ongoing experience: Shivo'ham (I Am Shiva) - Awareness; the ground of being; limitless, One.
However, "highest" is of course a relative term. In actuality, unbound awareness, abiding non-dual awareness is simply what is, and is what is experienced as self consciously, when the obscurations which arise from identifying with the idea of limitation and mind called ego have dissolved.
What I'm calling enlightenment is simply the complete relaxation of unbound awareness back into our natural state, rather than maintaining the tension of artificially creating and re-creating a self-universe of perceived limitation (what I would call unenlightenment), by focus solely on forms (thoughts, feelings, energies, memories, circumstances, ideas, imagination, evaluation, and so on).
After this restoration of the natural state, the experiences of body-mind of course continue, but they occur within unbound awareness. Body-mind, and its experiences, and all change, are the realm of Shakti, the power and ability of Shiva. Original unbound awareness is Shiva.
And so are each and all of us, ever-now.
quote:
Not 24/7 until an emotional reaction comes along and that is experienced as hate, anger, sadness etc. but actually 24/7 without interruption.
That's a very interesting hypothesis.
If there's any living human who has ever experienced such a thing, I hope they will read this, and tell us about it.
quote:
This certainly creates a different perspective of the world where no experience can be perceived as negative, total acceptance leading towards total bliss/ love. I think very few reach this point but it would come later on after seeing our selves as unbounded awareness.
Respectfully disagreed, "per above".
Bliss isn't what most people think it is. Notice the similarity between the words "Bliss" and "Blessing".
Bliss, in enlightenment, is the blessing we give by being enlightened; by knowing ourselves as wholeness. There's an inherent resonance with this for those who are both sensitive and willing.
Shiva (the name, the word) means "The One Who Blesses".
Not because it's a nice godly sounding name, but because it's how awareness actually operates.
Form receives; Awareness gives. Inherently, naturally.
Trying to understand any of this with mind is like trying to fill a brick with a brick, or cut a sword with a sword; it doesn't work too well.
Awareness fills; all else is the receptacle which contains awareness.
That's why and how awareness is primary.
All dividing lines are both artificial and conceptual.
Awareness is wholeness.
Anthem wrote:
quote:
Agreed, no problem, but still points to some subtle identification with a concept, in other words seeing just one side of an object's nature rather than both sides.
quote:
I'm still not quite getting this "both sides" thing .... can you maybe clarify what you mean, a bit?
I've just literally never heard of it, prior to this discussion.
quote:
Sure happy to elaborate, apologies for not being clear.
So let’s use Jed’s description from his 2rd book "Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment" since you were asking earlier for examples and I will take his writing literally not being able to know for certain how it was meant. He may very well be joking and love Californians but it serves as a useful example.
So he talks about hating LA and California and Californians in general throughout the first chapter. This is an example of a fixed view on one end of something. In other words, he is seeing LA and Californians from a negative perspective and experiencing the emotional reaction of “hate” that goes with having a fixed (opposite of open minded) perspective.
Hating Californians is equivalent to hating something within the Self, within myself, since it is all Self. Outside, from my perspective, is just a reflection of something within. This view can be corrected and once I see the positive side of LA and Californians, I will no longer suffer, it feels “good” again. My true nature is no longer clouded over with an emotional reaction of hate, anger, sadness etc., and love/ bliss continues uninterrupted. I no longer hate (contract) on something within myself, all is me, all is One, loving all aspects of creation is loving all aspects of myself within and without.
Well, okay. But we might also look at it as follows: if someone is enlightened, they're free, yes? Free enough to enjoy the dream-state however it flows to do. Saying "I hate L.A." does not imply suffering, necessarily. It implies that the body-mind in question is expressing an aspect of its conditioning, I would say.
I actually took the "California scenes" of that book as Jed A. Having a great time, and B. Telling a great story.
Example, from the L.A. dinner party chapter{s}; Jed says:
"I'm going to strangle the next one who swirls and sniffs their wine. Not really of course. But a larger part of me than I care to admit has a hard time believing I'd get in trouble for it."
Anyone who would call that unenlightened has:
A. Never been to an L.A. dinner party
B. Not even trying to get why Jed McKenna might be including clearly controversial content like that (hint: please note book title - "Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment").
C. Has not read, or has disregarded, the interview in the back of the book:
Q. So you were intentionally offensive?
Jed: Part of the intent might have been to start out with a challenge: Suicide, Nazis, catsh*t, teen angst. Is it funny or offensive? Good-spirited, or mean? Is Jed arrogant, or something else? Do I like him? What does it mean if I don't? Upon whom would that really reflect?
Q. Can an enlightened person behave that way?
Jed: Right, can this guy be enlightened if he acts this way? Talks this way? Sticks this semi-belligerent stuff in the front of his book? Where's the unconditional love? The compassionate heart? Or, wait, maybe it's my preconditioned notions about enlightenment and spirituality that are screwy. Maybe I have to go back and really think about what it would be like to be an enlightened person in an unenlightened world. Maybe I've been sold a bill of goods. Maybe it's the sweetness and light version that doesn't make sense.
**
quote:
From my perspective, it is possible to perceive any object/ experience in duality in a positive or negative way (not to mention everything in between). If I have a fixed perspective on anything either exclusively positive or exclusively negative, I will suffer at some point until I see both the positive and negative and hence have a balanced perspective.
Good luck with that (seriously).
It sounds like a lot of work, though. And likely impossible, I'd say.
Why?
Because the sense-of-self who would care to do that doesn't just have conditioning; it is conditioning.
Better, I would say, to simply unravel the knot that keeps mind stuck in doing stuff like that .... which is the essence of the teachings of Nisargadatta, Ramana & Adyashanti, as well as the end result of all spiritual paths (the inherent liberation that is experienced when the knot of the conceptual separate self is dissolved).
All illusions, all suffering arise from the illusory concept of being a separate self.
quote:
Reactions like hate, anger, sadness etc. indicate that there is a viewpoint that can be corrected, the reward being more bliss/love experience until it is 24/7.
I truly wish I had words to convey the magnitude of both my respect and my disagreement.
Reactions like hate, anger, sadness, etc., indicate that, as the Bhagavad-Gita says "the gunas act upon the gunas". (Gunas are the three qualities of nature: Tamas, Rajas, Sattva; Inertia, Activity; Balance).
Nothing needs to be corrected.
Everything is already perfect.
To quote Jed McKenna (fitting, per the title of the thread )
"There is not so much a hair out of place in the entire Universe."
Reactions don't need to be changed; the illusion of being a self who has reactions just needs to be seen through; this resolves everything, quite literally.
Body-minds do what body-minds do. After enlightenment, they mellow out quite a bit, but what they do doesn't matter a lot; heck, they'll be dissolved back into constituent energies within a few dream decades anyway, and the only actuality is right now. What's all the fuss about?
quote:
When a person brings true unity perspective to all experiences and objects, the body does not feel and live an emotional reaction such as hate, sadness, jealousy etc.
Body-minds kick up momentary conditioned reactions exactly like body-minds kick up itches and the need for bathroom breaks. They don't matter.
Actual hate probably requires time; I don't know that too many enlightened people hate; doubtful, at best, I'd say. When Jed McKenna says he "hates Californians", I take that to mean that he finds some aspects of California to be irritating, not that's he's filled with an actual, rage-fueled hate. Plus, Jed mentions in the interview that he lived in Montecito (near Santa Barbara) for a while, and doesn't really hate L.A. or Californians, but rather:
"When I'm in Southern California, all I can think about is getting out, but it's only a personal preference. I still have preferences and I wanted to accentuate that apparent paradox."
quote:
there is no physiological response of hormones etc.
You've experienced this? Or heard of someone who has, in any sort of reliable way?
quote:
no contraction, and the perceiver remains in a state of peace/ bliss 24/7.
In my experience, and awareness (i.e. in terms of both myself, and anyone I know about who indicates they have experienced enlightenment) .... if that's the standard .... I'm pretty sure there's never been an enlightened person, or enlightenment.
That model seems to require body-minds to do something they've never, ever been seen to do: evaluate certain aspects of duality as "good", and somehow experience only those aspects, in a state of unity, when they themselves are a creature of partiality/disunity on many levels.
Easier, and more in harmony with reality, I would say, to simply release the illusion of the separate self, and let actuality be experienced as it actually is: non-dual.
A flash of anger and a flash of joy are both flashes of form energy. They happen. So what? Unless they're happening right this instant, they can only be experienced as dream-concepts, anyway. What's the trouble with dream-concepts? They happen too; they're nothing; they're gone in an instant, every instant, just like every thing-display ever is, unless they're artificially perpetuated by ego.
Artificial perpetuation and appropriation of life energies by the artifice known as ego is the source of all ignorance and suffering.
Let ego dissolve and be free.
quote:
Basically, the union of opposites occurs, in my experience, when it's experienced that perceiver, perceiving and perceived are all one/one activity ... the movement of one awareness.
quote:
From my perspective I see this too. I see all experiences and objects in creation as reflections of the Self. Until I love it all (all objects & experiences) I deny something within and there is not complete union.
I agree with this: all objects in creation are reflections of the Self.
All I'm saying is:
Knowing our self as Self, all the apparent conflicts in duality are inherently resolved.
The union of subject, object and perception/cognition exists for the sole purpose of experience that since the perceived object is known in perception, and since perception emanates from the perceiver we actually are .... that there is no inherent division, anywhere. Awareness is a single field; perceiver, perception and perceived arise, display and subside, together, within it, ever-now.
Conceptual unity, such as you describe, doesn't sound possible. Or, if it is, it would require so much over-riding of the body-mind's conditioning, that the root of the conditioning known as ego might well dissolve, too, and then there wouldn't be any more concerns about, or evaluations regarding unity, anyway.
However, that seems like a *really* hard way to go about it.
Like saying you *must* untie the Gordian Knot, rather than just slicing through it.
quote:
In Don Miguel Ruiz's words, "until the final judgment", a judgment being synonymous with having a fixed negative or positive perspective on something, we won't know 24/7 bliss/ love.
I'm not sure what he means by that, but I can tell you in and from experience:
Unbound awareness is beyond-before any such considerations - "past the final judgment", so to speak.
Saying things must be "until this" or "until that" is to stay mired in the realms of conceptual form.
The only must is seeing that ego is fiction. Everything else is just details.
quote:
All objects and experiences must be perceived as the One, joined in union.
Ah, got it (where I see the issue) ...... it's quite possibly not where you'd expect it.
It's in the word perceived.
When ego is dropped, all objects and experiences are known to arise from the One we each and all ever are now.
Knowing supersedes perception.
Duality happens within the non-duality we are now.
Hating Californians, 24/7 Love Bliss "same same" ..... that's the biggest challenge of all, summarized in a simple, ultra-profound statement by Jed:
"You're not there yet. You're still seeing two where there's only One."
The concepts and judgments and evaluation are seen as the creative palette of Maya; of the delusions that create the dream-state of partiality and separation.
Drop ego and judgment isn't possible.
Hating Californians isn't a judgment, it's an unconscious reaction; a preference of the body-mind, much like a dog chasing cars. Jed McKenna knows this as well as I do. Exactly as well. No biggie. Some dogs chase cars. An enlightened dog knows it's the dog, the chasing and the car. So what?
[quote]
A negative emotional reaction with someone/ something is a sign that this hasn't happened, a sign of a perspective that hasn't been joined in union, a perspective that still holds a fixed view on one side of the equation of duality.
I would say that a negative emotional reaction is ....... an evaluation.
Presuming you're referring to anger and such, I would say that a reaction of anger is, actually, a reaction of anger.
Body-minds do stuff like that. Body-minds have nothing to do with enlightenment.
Body-minds do tend to mellow out a bit, when enlightenment emanates through them, but reactions still happen.
Prior to enlightenment, form is a reaction. It's a snapshot. An after-image. By the time it happens, it's happened. Trying to control any of it in any way is the epitome of dreaming.
After enlightenment, form is the body; all form contains, and is an expression of awareness, including the reflected actions of the body-minds.
Some waves make a splash on some other waves, and then they're gone.
Enlightenment is knowing we're the ocean, and that the body-minds we seem to be are processes, not things. Waves are momentary, body-minds are essentially so.
All these teachings, definitions, enlightenment is this or that type of discussion is waves discussing how they can know and become the ocean.
I'm saying: I'm the ocean; I know it; we all can know it because we all are it, and all we have to do, really, is drop the idea that we're not.
And, I genuinely appreciate the overview, Anthem; disagreement doesn't mean that I don't respect both you and your views.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jun 24 2010 11:56:01 AM |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Jun 24 2010 : 04:30:49 AM
|
To study the way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things. To be enlightened by all things is to remove the barriers between one's self and others. Then there is no trace of enlightenment, though enlightenment itself continues into one's daily life endlessly.
The first time we seek the law, we are far away from the border of it. But soon after the law has been correctly transmitted to us, we are enlightened persons. - Master Dogen
--
The moment a transparent Glass takes form of a Mirror, it starts reflecting. Samadhi is becoming like a transparent glass again, invisible. Without any reflections. Pure.
--
This teaching is the school of the enlightened mind. The enlightened mind itself basically has no delusion or enlightenment. This is actually the subtle art of those who realize thusness. Even if you don't become enlightened, when you sit once in meditation, you are a buddha for that sitting; when you sit for a day in meditation, you are a buddha for a day; when you sit in meditation all your life, you are a buddha all your life. The same is true of the future; one who can have faith in this is someone with great potential.
Practicing everything without any sense of attainment is called the exceedingly profound transcendent wisdom. This wisdom can cut off the source of birth and death, like a sharp sword.
Enlightenment is the way to extinction. If you take peace and quiet to be bliss, all things are afflictions; but when you are enlightened, all things are enlightenment. - Master Daikaku
--
To think, to express, to let the thoughts take form of words, and the words to take form of speech, one has to come below chitta, below ego, below intellect, below mind, below body... then you can speak but you will also reflect. This is the law!
And when you return the same way, you become like a non reflective glass again. The state without divisions. Your natural state.
This is what Krishna meant when he said:
"Mein tum sab me hu par phir bhi tumse alag."
"I am in all of you but yet I am standing here apart from you"
This is the beauty, this is the power of That!
He is absolutely free, to be in Samadhi or without Samadhi.
And so are you! Because you are That!
But there are laws. If you wish to become a mirror, you have to follow the law in which the mirror exists. But once you know you are That, you will also know that you are not the mirror. This is the beauty.
Then all becomes a game. A leela. And you just play / act as long as the body remains. Knowing that you are not the body, not the mind, not intellect, not ego, not chitta but That! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Jed McKenna
