|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tadeas
Czech Republic
314 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 24 2010 : 05:28:39 AM
|
Kirtanman:
quote:
Body-minds have nothing to do with enlightenment.
Agreed, body-minds have everything to do with enlightenment.
 |
 |
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 24 2010 : 09:04:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tadeas
Kirtanman:
quote:
Body-minds have nothing to do with enlightenment.
Agreed, body-minds have everything to do with enlightenment.
LOL! Exactly.
 |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Jun 24 2010 : 12:36:45 PM
|
quote:
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 above, 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.
Yes Kirtanman, the above is a given, the distinction I am making is that the experience of this will continue to expand infinitely while in form forever. There is no top of the mountain, there is no making it to enlightenment, they are all concepts that don't exist. It is like trying to define a river by holding up some water from the middle of it and calling it the river.
quote:
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.
and what I am saying is that the knowing of self as changeless unbound awareness will continue to deepen and expand as it is experienced through form.
quote:
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.
Then we agree
quote:
"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."
As much as we are none of it, we are also body/ mind, we are all of it and none of it, it is a paradox. It is all One and only One. As I look at the wall, "this essence looks back, where ever "I" look, "me", "me", "me".
quote:
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.
From my perspective, there is no "last shift", the true self is seen/ known and the experience of it will continue to expand and deepen forever. There is continuous learning and expansion and releasing of fixed views. That's the beauty of existence.
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 human who has ever experienced such a thing, I hope they will read this, and tell us about it.
Everyone experiences this to some degree. If you are very attached to the concept of needing two arms in order to be happy and you lose one, the result is a not so enjoyable life experience. If you un-attach from the concept of needing two arms, the natural state of peace/ bliss is known again. If the time in-between these two events is 5 years, then the knowing of natural state peace/bliss is interrupted in a very noticeable way. If it is 3 seconds between attached point of view and unattached point of view, natural state peace/ bliss is uninterrupted.
quote:
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.
All I can say to this is bliss/ happiness and the deepest peace is felt more and more through the day as practices continue.
quote:
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 would luck be needed here? It isn't something that you go out and try to achieve. It is the way perspective works, it can see experiences/ objects in a positive light, negative light, or it can see both or it can see neither. As I mentioned once attachment is short enough to no longer interrupt the knowing of true nature/ peace bliss state for any significant period of time, then no concern.
As experience continues there will always be plenty of experiences where the mind/ body lets go of fixed points of view. I have observed this in so called "enlightened people". It will happen forever, there will always be learning, this doesn't stop with knowing our true nature. There is no "I" doing it, it happens automatically as awareness expands and it is continual expansion.
quote:
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.
Don't get hung up on the word corrected, it is just to convey the idea. Yes, there is nothing wrong, everything is perfect as it is. All things so called "negative" and "positive" work beautifully in perfect synchronization to show us our true Self. However I am not sure how it can be denied that our emotional reactions show that an underlying fixed or attached perspective is present. This is the point.
Just take any big/ significant emotional reaction you have ever had in your life and trace it back to its root. It will be shown that there was a perspective in there that it was somehow "not good" in some way usually for the "me". Once this perspective was unattached from, or the fact that there may in fact have been some "good" in said situation for the "me", then it is obvious there was no problem in the first place and no need for that initial emotional reaction.
How does Jed know he hates California? He feels it. For how long? If it is for days/ or every time he thinks of California, then ouch suffering. If it is a blip and he realizes Californians aren't that bad or that it is silly to attach to such a perspective, then no problem. If he enjoys hating Californians, then again no problem.
quote:
Body-minds kick up momentary conditioned reactions exactly like body-minds kick up itches and the need for bathroom breaks. They don't matter.
Body-minds do matter very much. In Jed's words, "they are all we've got". There is no experience of "enlightenment" or anything else without them. Without that there is simply unbound awareness without opposite. We can't know the differing degrees of consciousness without them.
quote:
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.
Right there has never been an enlightened person now we agree! All joking aside, Byron Katie, Yogani, Ramana all speak of this 24/7 uninterrupted state. It doesn't mean emotional reactions don't arise, they do but are blips, are not believed, seen to be not true and aren't attached to.
quote:
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.
Not sure where you are getting this, I'm actually saying the opposite. All aspects of duality, so called "positive" and so called "negative" are ultimately "love" for lack of a better word. It is all "good".
quote:
Body-minds do stuff like that. Body-minds have nothing to do with enlightenment.
On the contrary, body/ minds have everything to do with enlightenment because without them there could never be life "unenlightenment". It is the creation of the body/ mind and the experience of it that gives unbounded awareness the opportunity to know itself as limited "me", "i". It is through the body/ mind that perspective can change revealing more and more of THAT (unbounded awareness).
quote:
And, I genuinely appreciate the overview, Anthem; disagreement doesn't mean that I don't respect both you and your views.
Of course and likewise.
A
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2010 : 10:08:03 PM
|
Hi Anthem,
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
quote:
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 above, 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.
quote:
Yes Kirtanman, the above is a given, the distinction I am making is that the experience of this will continue to expand infinitely while in form forever.
Yes, agreed, but it seems we're comparing apples and .... apple seeds, here.
My statements about unbound awareness have nothing to do with form or experience; form and experience arise from, display within, and subside back into unbound awareness ... aka the absolute, the supreme, the ultimate, the source of all, etc.
Of course experience continues in the realms of form; that's where experience occurs.
And so, it seems we agree, here, at least.
quote:
There is no top of the mountain, there is no making it to enlightenment
Many who have realized the truth, and call it enlightenment, and presumably entire traditions who look at reality via such a model, would disagree.
I'm not concerned with the terms of preference, but rather the actuality to which the terms point.
Terms like enlightenment and liberation are relative; after the actuality to which these terms point is realized, these terms essentially become non-applicable anyway.
However, as relative indicators, I feel they can still be useful.
There's no top of the mountain, because there's no mountain.
It's more like we're one river, dreaming we're billions of ice cubes; all that's really needed is melting into actual awakening, regardless of what it's called.
I feel that there's a greater risk in never calling anything "enlightenment", than there is in saying "the realization of, and living from, our true nature is enlightenment, and it's available for all of us."
Essentially all realized teachers say something similar.
Why so much resistance to this way of stating things?
What's the perceived gain you see from steering clear of the term enlightenment?
quote:
they are all concepts that don't exist.
I agree with this -- they are concepts that don't exist, in the exact same way that a dot on a map, with a word or two by it can indicate a physical location with buildings and people, or like some words on a piece of paper indicate some food that can be purchased.
These non-existent concepts can still help people find their way to the physical location, or can result in eating the food that one wishes to eat ... but the map is not the location, and the menu is not the meal.
In the same way, the word "enlightenment" attempts to describe the indescribable, and relatively indicate the absolute ("challenging at best"  ).
However, if someone is trying to decide if it's worth making a journey based on a dot on a piece of paper with some words next to it, and multiple people can say "Very 'worth it'; I've been there; in fact, I'm speaking to you from t/here; it's great ... come see for yourself!"
.... this may encourage the traveler to make the journey.
As opposed to saying "Well, you can never really say, for sure, that you've reached that city, and there are a lot of cities ...."
(Etc. Etc.)
When Adi Shankaracharya (founder of Advaita Vedanta) wrote the following, in the 8th Century ....
I am beyond all things.
I am everlasting, self-luminous,
taintless, and completely pure.
I am immovable, blissful, and imperishable.
I am without thought, without form.
I am all pervasive, I am everywhere, yet I am beyond all senses.
I am neither detachment nor salvation nor anything that could be
measured.
I am consciousness and bliss. I am Shiva, I am Shiva.
... he didn't seem to feel the need to add "and I'll keep changing and expanding forever in the realms of form, of course."
I wonder why?
quote:
It is like trying to define a river by holding up some water from the middle of it and calling it the river.
I'd say it's more like saying "Hey, fellow droplets ... you know all those teachings about actually being the river? They're right ... we're actually the river!! That's All; carry on ....!!"
Now, this is just a guess ..... but there's likely not a river anywhere that gives a flying ... splash ... about the word "river". But it's still what it is, and if droplets had been burdened with language to the point of believing conceptual distinctions were real .... and they were open .... watered .... enough ... to accept that they are not .... it would seem that this awareness of being wholeness could be received as very good news, indeed.
quote:
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.
quote:
and what I am saying is that the knowing of self as changeless unbound awareness will continue to deepen and expand as it is experienced through form.
And what I am saying is:
The experiencing will change, yes; the knowing does not. The knowing is; it's not "form knowing" in any way; it can't be understood or experienced with mind .... understanding, experiencing and mind are all ways of artificially chopping up the wholeness we are; unbound awareness is the wholeness we are now.
Various schools and systems call it by names such as the Self, or the Absolute, or the Supreme, or the Ultimate or the Ground of Being.
As Meister Eckhart, the famous Christian Mystic wrote, it is the place "where distinction never gazed".
Words are distinction-making tools, utilized by distinctions made by the words ... hence all the difficulty in discussing the distinction-free wholeness we actually are.
That's why the increasing refrain from most authentically enlightened- or-whatever-you-want-to-call-them people/teachers (understanding, yet again, that there are of course no enlightened people or teachers) is:
Come see for yourself.
quote:
As much as we are none of it, we are also body/ mind, we are all of it and none of it, it is a paradox. It is all One and only One. As I look at the wall, "this essence looks back, where ever "I" look, "me", "me", "me".
On one level I agree, and on another not; words so easily get in the way.
On the one hand, there's nothing that's not it (non-dual means non-dual).
On the other hand, to say that we "are" "our" body-mind is much like saying we "are" our eyes; somewhat accurate, but potentially misleading, I'd say.
A good way to look at it (pun fully intended ) might be:
If someone loses their eyes/sight ..... they still exist, yes?
Their existence is not dependent upon their eyes, their sight, or the objects appearing via their sense of sight.
However, if that person, that body-mind "dies", their eyes and their sense of sight die, too.
That's because eyes and sight are subsidiary to the overall body-mind.
The body-mind is subsidiary to unbound awareness, and occurs within it.
quote:
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:
From my perspective, there is no "last shift", the true self is seen/ known and the experience of it will continue to expand and deepen forever. There is continuous learning and expansion and releasing of fixed views. That's the beauty of existence.
Please don't get stuck on the word "shift"; in retrospect, it may not have been the best word to use.
Form and experience require unbound awareness; unbound awareness does not require form or experience.
quote:
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.
I'm just saying that that's the really long, arduous and not guaranteed-to-succeed way of going about it.
Better, easier (and guaranteed) to see through the illusion of the limited perceiver.
When that is completed, there's no concern about fixed views, no evaluation of positive and negative; simply reality.
quote:
However I am not sure how it can be denied that our emotional reactions show that an underlying fixed or attached perspective is present. This is the point.
They show fixed attachment on the part of the conditioned personality.
We are not the conditioned personality.
We are unbound awareness.
Example:
The actress Julia Roberts played a prostitute in the movie Pretty Woman, quite a few years ago. She went through some emotional turmoil then, in her relationship with Richard Gere's character.
Do you think she still remembers her time as a prostitute in that movie, or that she is bothered by the turmoil that she and Richard Gere's character went through?
If not, why not?
How about Richard Gere? He played a successful business mogul who fell in love with a prostitute. Do you think Richard Gere and Julia Roberts are still together?
Or ... might the prostitute and the business mogul might be remembered, if at all ......... as roles ...... they were playing?
"Just sayin' ...."
quote:
Just take any big/ significant emotional reaction you have ever had in your life and trace it back to its root. It will be shown that there was a perspective in there that it was somehow "not good" in some way usually for the "me". Once this perspective was unattached from, or the fact that there may in fact have been some "good" in said situation for the "me", then it is obvious there was no problem in the first place and no need for that initial emotional reaction.
Sure, in the form-realms, this happens.
That's part of what the form-realms are for, it seems.
I'm just saying that what I'm terming unbound awareness is not connected with this at all.
Jed McKenna says it well in the first book (paraphrasing, here -->)
"The one doing the speaking and teaching and writing is not the one that's enlightened."
Body-mind is a sense and its content; not a self.
Mind can't understand this any more than an eye can see itself; the unbound awareness we are is this, and we can all know-be this consciously, by dropping all artificial ideas of limitation.
The result of that process is what I'm calling enlightenment, because it allows us to live from the actual awareness of what we are, as opposed to any longer confusing the vacillations of form with the whole of reality, or with what we are, now.
quote:
How does Jed know he hates California? He feels it. For how long? If it is for days/ or every time he thinks of California, then ouch suffering.
Suffering? Who said anything about suffering?
The body-mind just plays what's cued up when someone/something hits "play".
It's not like they're conscious or anything.
Per what I wrote above about Julia Roberts .... Jed McKenna has as much issue with hating California as Julia Roberts did with wondering whether a successful business mogul could ever love her .... a prostitute.
The body-mind is our character; it's not who we *are*.
How apt is this analogy?
I don't know for sure ............. but I do know the Shiva Sutras give it, as well (and no, for any wise-acres reading this post .... Julia Roberts is not mentioned in the Shiva Sutras ....).
"The Self is the actor."
~Shiva Sutras 3.9
quote:
If it is a blip and he realizes Californians aren't that bad or that it is silly to attach to such a perspective, then no problem. If he enjoys hating Californians, then again no problem.
Better yet; if he's not even remotely attached to the one who "hates California", he can just enjoy that abiding non-dual awareness includes everything equally.
"Nothing is so grotesquely horrible, or so heart-wrenchingly beautiful that it transcends my transcendence."
~Jed McKenna
quote:
Body-minds kick up momentary conditioned reactions exactly like body-minds kick up itches and the need for bathroom breaks. They don't matter.
Body-minds do matter very much. In Jed's words, "they are all we've got". There is no experience of "enlightenment" or anything else without them. Without that there is simply unbound awareness without opposite.
Agreed; that probably wasn't the best way to say what I intended to say.
To indicate how much I genuinely agree, I'm fond of saying "without form, all there'd be is an infinite puddle of awareness."
Body-minds are the platform for our truth-realization, and after, the embodiment of the unbound awareness we actually are.
Prior to (what I'm calling) enlightenment, body is the body for mind.
"After", body-mind is the body for unbound awareness, though more accurately and completely, as the Shiva Sutras state:
"The body is the perceptible."
~Shiva Sutras 1.14
And so, "I get it."
What I meant to convey is:
Body-minds are not what get enlightened ........ that's *why* "there's no such thing as an enlightened person".
Confusing individual body-minds with selves and the planes of form-consciousness with the whole of reality are what dissolve in (what I'm calling enlightenment), and the unbound awareness which contains them is known as our true nature.
It's not individual.
The fluctuations that go on in personality-ego-mind are relegated to their natural place, an infinitely more enjoyable and relaxed place, very similar to what the eyes see.
If you ride public transportation through a not particularly beautiful part of your city, does it bother you much? Do you try to figure out a way to see it differently, in case you pass through it, or a similar city-section again?
Or does it not even occur to you to do something like that?
"Same."
That's why "hating Californians" is no big deal; it's a personality-ego-mind thing; they do all kindsa weird stuff. It can actually be part of the fun, if we let it.
(And lest anyone forget: I'm Californian. How bothered do I seem, about Jed McKenna's hatred of Californians? How unenlightened do I seem to think this makes him?)
quote:
All joking aside, Byron Katie, Yogani, Ramana all speak of this 24/7 uninterrupted state. It doesn't mean emotional reactions don't arise, they do but are blips, are not believed, seen to be not true and aren't attached to.
Exactly. Likewise Jed McKenna.
I thought you were saying 24/7 literally, as in: "no blips allowed", and that that was your issue with Jed (that "blips" seem to be experienced).
As Jed explains in the interview, the "California chapters" stayed in the book *on purpose*, as a mirror, to challenge people's pre-conceptions about enlightenment.
From the interview, re: those chapters ---
Jed: I was a little surprised they stayed in.
Q. But it's you that left them in.
Jed: Yes and no. I'm a participant in the creation of these books, but I'm also very much an observer. I receive clear direction and I follow it, whether it's writing books or anything else. I move with the tides on an ocean where the difference between self and other becomes merely theoretical.
quote:
Not sure where you are getting this, I'm actually saying the opposite. All aspects of duality, so called "positive" and so called "negative" are ultimately "love" for lack of a better word. It is all "good".
Okay, cool; I misunderstood you; "all cleared up" .... thanks.
quote:
Body-minds do stuff like that. Body-minds have nothing to do with enlightenment.
quote:
On the contrary, body/ minds have everything to do with enlightenment because without them there could never be life "unenlightenment".
Okay, agreed.
This is where words get in the way (some more ........).
For me, the terms "unbound awareness" and "enlightenment" are effectively synonymous, but the former is absolute, and per what you wrote (and I agree) the latter is relative.
I should have written something like:
Body-minds have nothing to do with unbound awareness.
However, even that's not entirely accurate, because, of course, there wouldn't be any "bound" to be "unbound" from, without body-minds (I *really* agree with your point here! ... and thanks for helping me work on "phrasing precision" a bit, here!)
Okay ..... how about:
Inherently limitless original awareness (aka our true nature) is utterly independent; all form is dependent upon inherently limitless original awareness.
It's not that body-minds don't matter (heck, they *are* matter ... for that matter! ) ..... it's just that they're not what gets enlightened; confusing them with self is the dream we wake up *from*.
And so, if they react a bit to stuff here and there, and exert preferences, or whatever ....... that doesn't mean the inherently limitless awareness living through them is unconscious of itself (though it can, it's just not any kind of an accurate benchmark, is all); that's an evaluation-supposition that's only of interest to form-mind.
That's how and why Nisargadatta could smoke, or get upset when his lunch was late, or Adyashanti can get frustrated with his computer, or Jed McKenna can hate California; body-minds are objects bouncing around the realms of objectivity, just like all other objects; that's where Buddhism gets its doctrine of "dependent origin" .... "everything causes everything else", as Adyashanti says.
Singular, inherently limitless original awareness; this that we each and all ever actually are now -- is the solvent, the field; form/objectivity is the set of solutes.
Knowing this --- our Self as the solvent, all form as the solutes ....... is, of course ........ the solution.
Limitless awareness includes *everything*.
quote:
It is the creation of the body/ mind and the experience of it that gives unbounded awareness the opportunity to know itself as limited "me", "i". It is through the body/ mind that perspective can change revealing more and more of THAT (unbounded awareness).
Ah, yes ........... and my primary point, which, per some of the phrasing discussion above, I didn't make all that well, is:
At the levels of form, what you wrote above is true.
All I was trying to say is that (what I've been calling) enlightenment is, exactly, the knowing of our true nature, in ongoing experience, as abiding non-dual awareness (which, being non-dual, utterly supersedes all aspects of distinction, designation and form, which happen within it).
Original Awareness is not part of duality; duality is part of, the movement of, Original Awareness (<--- which may be a better, more accurate term than "unbound awareness", which can be confusing, per its relative nature).
Thanks again for the very interesting discussion; I hope it's interesting and helpful for others reading, too.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jun 27 2010 10:34:57 PM |
|
|
|
cosmic
USA
821 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2010 : 10:30:29 PM
|
Hey K-man,
Us Californians are part of the play. You already know this.
Jed's hatred of us is his own projection, which he may or may not be attached to. Which is none of our concern.
There is only the play, and the one watching the play. Which you know already.
Go Lakers!
Love
cosmic |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 27 2010 : 10:41:34 PM
|
More Jed McKenna Quotes
Source: "Another Level – Jed McKenna Tribute 3 of 6"
When I speak or write, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, or sell anything. My whole gig is telling people to look for themselves, to simply see what’s right in front of them.
**
I look upon children’s burn wards and civil war hospitals and Nazi death camps, with the same eye with which I look upon bursting gardens and stars-swept nights and laughing babies. They’re just the opposite poles of the film’s emotional spectrum. They don’t make me forget my reality.
**
Nothing is so grotesquely horrible, or so heart-wrenchingly beautiful that it transcends my transcendence.
**
Nothing trumps truth. I know what man is, and I know what life is. If you look at these statements and decide I’m a bad guy, then you’re short-changing yourself.
**
The prize to be won in this battle is not wealth or fame or power, but the transition from untrue to true, from dream to awake, from illusion to reality.
**
Truth is beyond opposites. Duality is a dream. It’s not a yin-yang relationship. It’s one or the other.
**
The truth contains no element of the false and the false contains no truth. There is only truth and illusion, and within illusion there is only fear and denial.
**
Denial of fear is the motivation underlying all activities in which humans engage. This is vanity in the biblical sense: ‘I have seen all the works that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chasing after wind’.
**
I’m asking you, now: it it possible that everything’s going to be alright? This is a harsh piece of business we’re discussing; you won’t solve it on this level. You have to step up to the next one.
**
We must constantly project the illusion of self, because if we don’t, we aren’t.
**
Fear. It’s all about fear. Don’t you ever get tired of being afraid? Of struggling? The answer is to stop struggling.
**
The cause of the unhappiness isn’t the situation, but the resistance. You’re making disease and decay and death evil, but they’re not evil. They just are.
**
The clinging is the cause of the unhappiness. Release is the answer.
**
We might equate surrender with abdication of self-responsibility, but it’s really just the opposite. It’s where we dispense with intermediaries like priests and doctors and government, and take our own lives into our own hands.
**
New Jed McKenna Quotes Video
Enjoy!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jun 28 2010 : 12:53:59 PM
|
Great discussion everyone!
To me, this has all become very simple. Not necessarily simple to use words to describe, but simple in experienced essence.
The "body/mind preferences" will never cease. It's like trying to stop the "I-Thought" from ever arising again. Totally impossible IMO. What we CAN stop, is the identification with the I-Thought. The thought "I hate Californians" can and will arise even after coming to know the Self as Unbound Awareness. But the belief in the thought that "I" actually hate Californians, does end. So, Jed may say "I hate Californians", but the REAL "I" that Jed knows himself to be, does not believe this (hence no suffering). But that will not stop the thought of "I hate Californians" from arising and I guess even being said. Not sure if that is very clearly stated. I would like to try again using a personal example.
For me, I like a lot of different styles of music. I can appreciate and enjoy everything from the heaviest of heavy, to the mellowist of mellow, and everything in-between. But, that said, when I am in a place where there is "Top 40" being played, well, the body/mind cringes.  The "I" (the "I" that I know myself to be underneath my musical preferences) does not suffer over this. But I certainly do have a preference for something else to be on the radio!  I may even say out loud "I wish there was some better music playing right now," and this may sound to another like I am suffering, but in reality, there is no suffering....only preference. Preferences don't end when coming to know the Self as Self...what ends is the suffering over not having your preferences met.
Just my way of stating the unstateable
Love!
P.S. I think an important point to make here is that different emotions will always continue to arise, even in "liberation". When the identification with emotion is dropped, specific emotions don't tend to stay very long. For example.....say my wife does something that causes an angry emotion to arise in the body/mind called "me" ..... If I identify with that emotion, if I choose to believe that "I" am angry, that emotion will stick around until I lose that identification. If an angry emotion arises and I choose NOT to identify with that emotion, it leaves pretty quickly and is replaced with some other emotion. The emotions still arise, they just aren't identified with and hence pass quickly.....no suffering involved. The suffering comes when I actually believe that "I" am angry.
|
Edited by - CarsonZi on Jun 28 2010 12:59:49 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 28 2010 : 1:04:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Great discussion everyone!
To me, this has all become very simple. Not necessarily simple to use words to describe, but simple in experienced essence.
The "body/mind preferences" will never cease. It's like trying to stop the "I-Thought" from ever arising again. Totally impossible IMO. What we CAN stop, is the identification with the I-Thought. The thought "I hate Californians" can and will arise even after coming to know the Self as Unbound Awareness. But the belief in the thought that "I" actually hate Californians, does end. So, Jed may say "I hate Californians", but the REAL "I" that Jed knows himself to be, does not believe this (hence no suffering). But that will not stop the thought of "I hate Californians" from arising and I guess even being said. Not sure if that is very clearly stated. I would like to try again using a personal example.
For me, I like a lot of different styles of music. I can appreciate and enjoy everything from the heaviest of heavy, to the mellowist of mellow, and everything in-between. But, that said, when I am in a place where there is "Top 40" being played, well, the body/mind cringes. The "I" (the "I" that I know myself to be underneath my musical preferences) does not suffer over this. But I certainly do have a preference for something else to be on the radio! I may even say out loud "I wish there was some better music playing right now," and this may sound to another like I am suffering, but in reality, there is no suffering....only preference. Preferences don't end when coming to know the Self as Self...what ends is the suffering over not having your preferences met.
Just my way of stating the unstateable
Love!
Perfect!
Thanks Carson ... and I agree ... wholeheartedly!
You managed to say in a couple of paragraphs what took me ..... um ..... "a few more" ... to get anywhere close to conveying what you wrote above .... and I'm not too sure I even really managed!
And so, again, thanks; very sincerely.
I was going to use the example of liking tomatoes; I don't, and don't expect I ever will; body-minds are conditioning machines.
When the light of awareness is known to be Self consciously, and it thus can shine its light through mind and into manifestation, all kinds of cool stuff happens .... but certain tendencies, like music, food and people preferences .... are just finite expressings of the One, like everything else in form .... and so, allowed to be what they are ... just like everything else.
Seemingly paradoxically, but not really ... this resolves 100% of any "issue" with such things, and automatically erases probably 98% of any evaluation-related consciousness of them (things like food, music and people preferences), if not 100%.
We're all familiar with the idea of treating symptoms as opposed to underlying causes. Knowing our true nature (unbound/original awareness) results in removing the underlying cause of all suffering: the dream-error of thinking we are "me" (aka our ego-idea).
Attachment is attachment, whether it's liking or hating, clinging to or fleeing from; feeling affinity with, or fleeing from.
From unbound (aka original) awareness ...... it's all just experienced as perfectly okay.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jun 28 2010 1:10:39 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jun 28 2010 : 1:14:37 PM
|
Hey K-Man
I think you made your point just fine
Preferences are a beautiful thing IMO. If it weren't for preferences every enlightened human being would be exactly the same! It is the way we each personally express the same fundamental Truth that adds flavor to this experience of Life. This is also why so many people who come to know the All as Self expressed it so completely differently. Granted, this can be a source of confusion for many, but it also gives opportunity for those with simliar persuations to a particular person who lives Unbound to find teachings they resonate with. Personally, I resonate with Jed a fair bit. Our preferences are pretty similar. Others (who know themselves as Unbound just the same as Jed) I do not resonate so well with. Doesn't make one more realized then the other. Just preferences, and "we" aren't our preferences.
Love!
P.S> I don't like tomatoes either!  hahaha |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Jun 28 2010 1:15:34 PM |
|
|
|
WayneWirs
USA
17 Posts |
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 03 2010 : 8:50:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Got this in my Inbox this morning from Nonduality Highlights and thought of this thread: http://www.ods.nl/am1gos/am1gos11/z...dier-us.html. Similar "in your face" message that Jed McKenna "en-tones"(?).
Can't tell regarding the "Jed"-ishness yet (I've barely started reading/skimming) ... but all I can say is:
He had me at "No, Zil is."
A bit back in this thread, we were discussing the importance of body-minds (aka form), and I commented, "After all, it's not like they're conscious, or anything ...."
In seems that Zil is making this point in a seemingly brilliant and creative way.
Jed McKenna does make this identical point, as well, saying something like "the one who is teaching and writing is not the enlightened one."
Realizing this truth (body-minds don't get enlightened) can potentially save a LOT of time in opening to enlightenment. If we understand it fully, we'll stop seeking enlightenment where it's not: in form.
Form serves as a support for enlightenment, and some form (i.e. information) can help orient attention in the correct direction (within, away from form) .. but form itself has essentially nothing to do with enlightenment itself.
Enlightenment is exactly knowing our true nature as inherently free from form and containing form; all form is an appearance in awareness, made of awareness.
Just as physical body is the body for mind, mind becomes the body for enlightenment (aka original, non-relative awareness).
This is next to impossible to convey in words, because words are dividing tools; separators; awareness, enlightenment, is simply the actuality of wholeness; nothing more, nothing less; just wholeness.
The only difference between enlightenment and unenlightenment, is that unenlightenment is created by confusing form with the whole of reality.
Enlightenment is simply the restoration of the natural state, when this confusion is not created any longer (aka the dropping of the me-story, as Wayne has said).
This goes much deeper than conscious thought or release thereof, which is where practices of all effective types come in.
The lifelong mindware virus which states "evaluate, react!" finally dissolves all the way, down to the dissolution of the root code.
And then, simply put: everything is just freakin' fine. But only every moment now.
The freakin'-fineness has never been anywhere else, actually. We just thought it was.
Enlightenment, absolute awareness, is this that is animating-displaying every life, and all that is now.
The only difference in enlightenment is that this is experienced consciously, as opposed to unenlightenment, where it is experienced unconsciously -- per the artificial hyper-focus on form, and complete ignorance of our true nature as the absolute; the thought-reactions with which we block awareness of our inherent wholeness.
That's all waking up means.
Dropping dreams of partiality.
Waking up to inherent wholeness.
I don't find the "in your face" approach of people who state this directly and accurately as anything other than wonderful.
A harsh, grating alarm clock that wakes us up is worth a million gentle nudges that leave us asleep and dreaming ... presuming waking up is what we sincerely want.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- Thanks for this, Wayne; I look forward to getting to know Zil a bit!!
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 03 2010 : 9:14:51 PM
|
Hey Brother Carson,
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Hey K-Man
I think you made your point just fine
That wasn't so much a negative comparison towards myself, as much as a happy "cool, you said that nicely, and all .... whaddya-callit .... um .... *briefly*, too!"
"Nice."
quote:
Preferences are a beautiful thing IMO. If it weren't for preferences every enlightened human being would be exactly the same!
Plus they're kinda fun when limited-mind's not making a problem out of them.
quote:
It is the way we each personally express the same fundamental Truth that adds flavor to this experience of Life.
Indeed. That's the beauty, eh?
quote:
This is also why so many people who come to know the All as Self expressed it so completely differently. Granted, this can be a source of confusion for many
Only if they're trying to emulate or imitate and not get to reality via their own utter, irrevocable swan-dive into Truth (aka Awareness-Actuality).
As Adyashanti says:
"I am a window, look through me and not at me."
quote:
but it also gives opportunity for those with simliar persuations to a particular person who lives Unbound to find teachings they resonate with.
Yes indeedy.
quote:
Personally, I resonate with Jed a fair bit. Our preferences are pretty similar.
Hey, whaddya know? Me, too. Well, with the slight exception that I don't hate Californians; well, "almost always", at any rate .....
quote:
Others (who know themselves as Unbound just the same as Jed) I do not resonate so well with. Doesn't make one more realized then the other. Just preferences, and "we" aren't our preferences.
Agreed. Same. At the levels of form, we're drawn to what we're drawn to, and we tend to move away what we tend to move away from.
The "gunas acting upon the gunas" (form-qualities acting upon form-qualities) as the Bhagavad Gita says.
Awareness is just here experiencing all of it without experiencing any of it.
....... the world's greatest, most fun adventure movie .. that's also the "only game in town", and that's only about a trillion times more enjoyable, when we're knowing-experiencing ourselves as the One that fire can't burn and flood can't drown ... which is especially helpful to know when, at the levels of form, our ship is, to all appearances, burning in the middle of the sea (see: Moby Dick).
quote:
P.S> I don't like tomatoes either! hahaha
We better watch out .......... or in 24th Century Non-Dual AYPism (All Hail Yogani! ) ................ tomatoes will be, quite ironically, strictly forbidden.
(Or, more likely, tomatoes will be strictly *required*, because only the muckraking infidels of the early 21st century announced a dislike for the Holy Fruit-Vegetable ... or Vegetable-Fruit, or whatever the heck those things actually are ...... *shudder* ..... )
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 03 2010 : 10:03:40 PM
|
New Jed Video.
You all know I resonate with Jed McKenna, although he does have a rather in-your-face approach.
In this video ("fair warning" ) .... he turns it up a notch or .... dozens.
And so, I'm forced to revise my previous statements of "resonating" with Jed McKenna.
I do NOT resonate with Jed McKenna.
I LOVE Jed McKenna.
I *Really* LOVE Jed McKenna.
There have been other teachers who've told it as straight-up, throughout history (very, very FEW of them) ...... but none who've done this more so.
WOW is all I can say.
Paying complete attention to this video and remaining unenlightened for long would take a LOT of effort, is all (else ) I can say.
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jul 04 2010 12:53:57 PM |
|
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jul 05 2010 : 12:32:19 AM
|
I like tomatoes....and I think Jed McKenna is interesting but not the real deal...I didn't feel the LOVE.
IMHO LOVE trumps one persons version of what they think is TRUTH.
Just shows how opinions differ.
If you like SHOCK and AWE read Jed McKenna....if you want tried and true wisdom teachings stick with Christ, Buddha , Lao Tzu, Patanjali, The Gita etc.
I doubt Jed McKenna will be remembered 2000 years from now....but just my opinion of what is (or will be) TRUTH. |
Edited by - machart on Jul 05 2010 01:13:45 AM |
|
|
|
amoux
United Kingdom
266 Posts |
Posted - Jul 05 2010 : 06:36:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by machart
I
If you like SHOCK and AWE read Jed McKenna....
That's exactly the words that went through my head when I was thinking about Jed's approach.
A couple of years back I was in contact with a teacher whose approach was similar to Jed's. Only more so It did induce an opening - like being awoken by a fire alarm over your head and everybody screaming. Chaotic. But, to the extent that it momentarily paralysed the mind, it did work. However, awakening to a nice cup of tea and the sounds of the birds singing would be more pleasant (The trouble for me was that it wasn't happening that way.) No complaints though, it got the job underway.
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 05 2010 : 4:35:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by machart
I like tomatoes....and I think Jed McKenna is interesting but not the real deal...I didn't feel the LOVE.
IMHO LOVE trumps one persons version of what they think is TRUTH.
Just shows how opinions differ.
If you like SHOCK and AWE read Jed McKenna....if you want tried and true wisdom teachings stick with Christ, Buddha , Lao Tzu, Patanjali, The Gita etc.
I doubt Jed McKenna will be remembered 2000 years from now....but just my opinion of what is (or will be) TRUTH.
Hi Machart,
Divergent opinions are of course always welcome.
I'd just like to be sure I'm understanding you correctly.
You're saying that if there's a fire in a roomful of sleeping and dreaming children, and an adult yells, "FIRE!!" ...........
..... that they shouldn't be yelling? And that you feel it might be best to use a different word for fire than fire?
Also, I love the teachings of the world's great religions as much as anyone, but Jed McKenna actually makes some very good points about them, himself -- ones that I had also recently realized, prior to reading Jed's same views.
They are:
1. Look how many people are waking up as a result of those teachings (i.e. "hardly any at all" -- and especially, multiply true when you remember how widely available all those teachings have been for a long time, and how many people know of them and have access to them).
2. There's gold in the world's sacred writings and teachings, for sure ... but in many, many cases they're very obscurely (symbolically) stated, and mixed in with a bunch of other stuff that seems to be garbage unless you understand the deeper symbolism.
3. By the time you get to the point of being able to "mine the gold", per item #2 .... you really don't need it any more (if you didn't know the truths being taught in experience, how would you recognize them?)
Beyond that, I'll reiterate why I like Jed:
*He's speaking from the standpoint of enlightenment; what he states isn't what he thinks is truth. It's truth. A good definition (yes, Jed's) of truth-realization that I recently read was "when all questions disappear". Being in that same question-free condition {quote} myself {unquote}, I can confirm the accuracy of what Jed says. You may not like how he says it, but what he says is truth, through and through.
My enthusiasm about Jed McKenna is preference, and, I suppose, by extension, opinion.
My statements that Jed McKenna is stating truth accurately are not preference or opinion, but simply fact.
I read Jed McKenna, and I see "2+2=4".
And I smile and say "Why, yes, 2+2 does indeed equal 4".
It never occurred to me to consider that maybe he should state the equation with a bit more of what my preferences might feel comfortable calling "love".
*He gives more detail on what it's like to be enlightened, in the everyday world, in our current time and culture, than anyone else I've seen.
*He really doesn't leave anything out, and he doesn't put anything extraneous in. He states truth accurately, directly and unequivocally, without the need for hardly any use of exotic sacred-language terminology (about the only one he uses a lot is Maya, but he defines it early on, and as of the third book, it's his dog's name, too. )
*The first book (Spiritual Enlightenment is the Damnedest Thing) really says it all, though I highly recommend all three books, and the Notebook volume, as well.
And, as Jed points out, as well: why evaluate what someone says?
Use what you need in order to wake up, and then once awake ... do what you want.
The best teachers aren't always the nicest ones.
And sometimes, the ones who are willing to tell it to us straight are our best teachers, and the ones who help us actually learn what we need to learn. When the subject is Waking Up (i.e. the only truly important one) ... again, I have a difficult time understand why someone (Jed) stating things directly, is a problem. I'd think people would appreciate it; I sure do!!
Plus, I also think Jed's reputation as a "mean guy" are way, way *way* overblown. For one, the guy who made those videos (Ravenscroft, here at the forum) seems to resonate with Jed's directness (I get that; so do I), and so, Jed's *super* direct/in your face kinds of statements are disproportionately rendered via those videos.
In the books, Jed actually seems quite mild. I don't recall him yelling or even speaking loudly while gesturing emphatically, all that much (i.e. at all), unlike *some* world-revered sages I could mention ....
Regarding "love", I see the fact that Jed McKenna took the time and effort to write and publish three of the most powerful accurate and accurately powerful guides to actually waking up from the collective dream of ignorance and limitation as one of the most loving things anyone can do.
I've been shown love in a straightforward manner in another areas of my life, a time or two ..... and I can only look back on those times with gratitude; people actually loved me enough to give it to me straight.
Love and strength are not mutually exclusive.
If you look at the words of Jesus in the New Testament of the Bible, or the words of Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching, or Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras, or any of the other sages with statements attributed in the world's sacred writings ... I think you'll see that, even with their reputations for love and wisdom .... they don't exactly mince words.
What, specifically, is either shocking or "awe-ing" about Jed?
By the way (to all), so far, the only criticisms I've seen of Jed are (if I understand correctly) that he's not as nice as spiritual teachers are "supposed" to be, according to some people's ideas, and that he's "not there yet", based on (presumably) comparison to other teachers whose "thereness" is a bit more .... what? Comfortable?
An interesting exercise, if anyone feels like engaging in it, might be: please post a direct quote or passage from Jed McKenna, where he says something that is not true.
That would be interesting to discuss, I'd say.
I've read, and am now re-reading all three Jed McKenna books, plus his notebook (as Jed points out in his books: enlightened teachers who says things well are worth their weight in gold {and I'd add "only infinitely more so"}, not only to those waking up, but for those of us who are awake, and always on the look out for others who are communicating it well, in order to best share truth with others, as it comes up to do.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- In the second book, Jed says something very profound about the Bhagavad Gita: almost everyone misses the message, because they think it's about Krishna and Arjuna, and don't realize that it's all and only about themselves (the reader). All spiritual books are like that.
I don't love Jed McKenna's books because of anything to do with Jed McKenna, but because of the potential I see that they hold to awaken willing readers.
|
|
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jul 05 2010 : 6:41:59 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
His style just doesn't resonate with me ...although he has a lot of catchy "Truth" sayings...
"Enlightenment isn’t when you go there; it’s when there comes here."
"The point is to wake up, not to earn a Ph.D. In waking up."
"Enlightenment is the unprogrammed state."
...as you posted before he has many clever sayings telling us to "WAKE UP"...never saw where he mentioned it might be helpful to "be still". But I haven't read all his books....maybe he gets to that useful piece of information somewhere.
Just because he is not the real deal for me doesn't mean he is not providing beneficial information to you and others.
Opinions vary ...I like tomatoes...you don't...
I forgot to answer your question...
"What, specifically, is either shocking or "awe-ing" about Jed?"
I just feel he is yelling at me in the last video you recommended..."WAKE UP!WAKE UP!WAKE UP!WAKE UP! Keep cutting an ounce of flesh off your body till you WAKE UP!"...that's when I press the snooze button to go back to sleep...I just don't like people yelling at me making ridiculous requests.
I just prefer Yogani whispering to me..."be still...be still...be still...be still..." Then I can wake up and have a B E A utiful day!
...again just personal preference.
|
Edited by - machart on Jul 05 2010 7:51:18 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 05 2010 : 10:03:39 PM
|
Hi Machart,
I just took this statement from you:
quote:
I think Jed McKenna is interesting but not the real deal...I didn't feel the LOVE.
IMHO LOVE trumps one persons version of what they think is TRUTH.
... to imply that you felt Jed was not enlightened (admittedly my interpretation of your words "real deal"), and also that he was giving a "version" of what he thinks of as the truth (per your words above).
This just isn't the case.
He's describing reality and the way there quite accurately ... he's just (per your response) possibly not doing so with a softness and kindness that some people prefer in their spiritual teachers.
Here's an analogy that feels applicable:
I don't like tomatoes .... but I do recognize they're nutritious.
In your first post (especially per the part quoted above), it sounded somewhat like you were saying "I don't like Jed McKennas, and therefore, they're not nutritious."
I'm just saying "Jed McKennas" are very nutritious, even if you don't like the taste .... exactly as you could say to me about tomatoes.
I don't know why everyone hears Jed as "yelling" (for one, that's not Jed's voice; it's some hired dude who reads the audiobooks), and for two, I don't know that I've been around a lot of yelling in my life, but it's usually a fair amount louder and meaner sounding than the voice in the video sounds.
The way I see it, Jed sounds very even-keel and even a bit friendly, if all his comments are listened to, and taken in context, and he's giving the guy who wrote to him some advice that might actually help him .... and Jed took the time to do so. I like that.
I just see Jed as a really good, clear teacher.
I'll take one of those over someone who's all peace and bliss, but who's not helping me wake up.
In AYP and Yogani, we have a real gold mine: someone who's both nice and straightforward, and who can guide AYPers, via lessons, this forum, and so on, in the ways that will help them wake up.
Most of the spiritual world isn't like that.
Look at the numbers of people waking up: they're staggeringly small.
Why? Because most systems don't work, OR the people participating in those systems can't seem to find the clarity and motivation to become a truth-seeking missile.
Without "igniting", anyone involved in spirituality literally has no better chance of waking up than someone who is not (ego is ego, mind is mind, no matter what the outer trappings may be).
Spreading AYP and related systems and sites will help .... but so will the Jed McKennas of the world, potentially a lot.
It's okay; many people think my non-liking of tomatoes is pretty weird, too.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- You make a good point, though, Machart; maybe I'll try to find some Jed statements which have a little more specificity to them than the ones you mentioned; I thought some of the quotes (in both sets I've posted so far ..... contained some very useful information, for anyone who might not have that information, already). |
|
|
|
jamuna
Australia
104 Posts |
Posted - Jul 06 2010 : 12:35:11 AM
|
| bit late but loved them quotes, ill check out the books |
|
|
|
amoux
United Kingdom
266 Posts |
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2010 : 10:22:49 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
A little delayed here in my reply, sorry about that, had no internet access for the last week.
You have asked why I had resistance to calling the realization of true nature (beingness/ unbound awareness) enlightenment. You can call this enlightenment if you want, I certainly don’t mind, from my experience though, this is just one milestone along the way, so I make that distinction to not call any realization the end of the enlightenment process in order to stay fluid and open to continued ongoing expansion and not plant the flag in the ground at any point and get hung up on any realization. That is all.
This quote you shared summarizes it beautifully:
quote:
I am consciousness and bliss. I am Shiva, I am Shiva.
Yogani points out very well in the AYP enlightenment milestones that the two go hand in hand, first the rise of witness 24/7, in other words knowing yourself as consciousness, not body, emotions, thoughts, or objects of any kind in an uninterrupted way. Therefore no moments where the perceiving (witness) thinks it is “I”, “me”, emotions, thoughts, body, etc.. Yogani points out that this usually comes first and has been my experience as well. Adyashanti also speaks to this as well.
This evolves and although Jed says bliss has nothing to do with it, they are intrinsically tied together in enlightenment as the AYP lessons clearly point out. Yogani mentions the third stage of enlightenment is the arising bliss/ love 24/7, sat-chit-ananda I think it is called (my knowledge of the scriptures is very limited, so please forgive me if I have spelled this wrong).
We are love/ bliss, the One, like the quote above says. All perceived is not what we are and yet also what we are simultaneously. It is a paradox.
So you asked where does Jed say something that is not accurate and from my experience when he speaks to enlightenment not having anything to do with bliss/ love, this is not accurate. So let’s not get bogged down in a debate about whether Jed is or isn’t enlightened, I would simply say it is misleading to say that enlightenment has nothing to do with bliss/love. By Jed’s own words bliss/ love isn’t his normal state, but by Yogani’s milestones and by the expressing words of many sages it will eventually come to that as the experience deepens and continues. Yogani, Byron Katie and Don Miguel Ruiz are three examples of those who speak of bliss/ love as there state of beingness 24/7. If he hasn't already, as he identifies less and less, Jed will eventually know the bliss/ love of enlightenment 24/7.
quote:
They show fixed attachment on the part of the conditioned personality.
We are not the conditioned personality.
We are unbound awareness.
True we are unbound awareness, all arises within That, never an argument with this point. The point or distinction I am making though is that the conditioned personality (our stage if you will in the theater of life) that is our experience of duality, which dictates our experience of physical reality, will continue to evolve, as it has always done prior to the realization of True Nature. There will be a continuous seeing through form that continues on, all the while we Witness as unbound awareness.
So after what you call enlightenment, the realization of knowing ourselves as unbound awareness. Love/ bliss expands, the perception of Oneness deepens and is perceivable in all that there is, the veil falls ever away and is increasingly seen through. Continuous expansion of awareness. Loving service expands and devotion to all that Is because it is what we are. Serving another is serving ourselves. We meet others through that love/ bliss that is our true nature which is compassionate and kindness in essence.
Can a realized sage bludgeon someone with the truth? Only everytime it is asked for by someone can you be sure that the hammer of truth will be swung, if it takes the form of anger you can be sure there is a loving heart underneath.
Thank you for this conversation it has helped this body mind to express and see with more clarity.
|
Edited by - Anthem on Jul 08 2010 10:28:19 AM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2010 : 10:08:03 PM
|
Hi Anthem,
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
Hi Kirtanman,
A little delayed here in my reply, sorry about that, had no internet access for the last week.
No worries; I just figured you just got bored with the conversation ........
(Yes, I'm kidding ...... but only 100%. )
quote:
You have asked why I had resistance to calling the realization of true nature (beingness/ unbound awareness) enlightenment. You can call this enlightenment if you want, I certainly don’t mind, from my experience though, this is just one milestone along the way, so I make that distinction to not call any realization the end of the enlightenment process in order to stay fluid and open to continued ongoing expansion and not plant the flag in the ground at any point and get hung up on any realization. That is all.
No problem at all .... in fact, it seems that we're communicating clearly enough now, that I, at least, am seeing that we don't actually disagree, with respect to the vast majority of what we're discussing here in this thread.
As I've said, I'm not concerned with the term enlightenment per se; it just seems like the most useful term, in many cases, per people's sense of "enlightenment" as the point where we actually know, utterly, our true nature, and thus live (as you rightly point out) in an ever-deepening condition of abiding non-dual awareness -- the "ever-deepening" aspects, as it seems we agree, occurring on the levels of form.
However, my concern was (and to an extent, is) that saints, sages, teachers and others, who know (consciously are) our true nature (I'm doing my best to avoid using the "E-word" ), including myself, all seem to be in complete agreement: there is a point where a fundamental, utter shift in identity (practically-speaking, the shift is "from having an identity to not having an identity" from limited-self to self not being experienced or referenced; there are thoughts, feelings, day-to-day living, in experience, but no sense of a tangible, define-able "I" anywhere, other than formless awareness itself as our full field of awareness and its contents, every moment now).
Per the fact that our true nature is, as you also rightly point out, that of limitless (whole) being-consciousness-bliss (satchidananda), when we actually come to literally, irrevocably know ourselves, it changes (understandably) everything.
Nisargadatta speaks of this, as does Ramana; so did Abhinavagupta, so does Adyashanti, so does Yogani, and so do many, many others (a small handful, out of all people, of course) -- and, as far as I know -- we're all (those of us speaking from the living-knowing-awareness of it) saying exactly the same thing.
I'm more than happy to acknowledge that I may not be communicating my overall view well, if that is the case, but I'm not saying anything differently than any of the other teachers here that most of us consider to be speaking from experience (Yogani, Adyashanti, Nisargadatta, Ramana, etc.) regarding the primary points related to whatever you'd like to call the breakthrough into living from true nature of irrevocable awareness-knowing (hence the term Jnani - knower, that both Ramana and Nisargadatta tended to use), as opposed to any longer confusing duality and form as having anything to do with our true nature.
Our true nature is eternal, infinite, changeless and immovable; form is none of those things. Form itself is an aspect, or, rather, ability-activity, of our true nature, yes ---- but none of the specifics of form are aspects of our true nature, per their ever-oscillating qualities, any more than the current length of our hair, or our rate of respiration could be said to be inherent qualities of our true nature.
And so, with all respect, and with genuine appreciation for the almost-complete agreement we seem to have (as I've suspected all along ) regarding almost all of our discussing, here, I see the (what seems to me as) shying away from saying that there is ever an actual breakthrough into the absolute as ultimately not being the most useful approach.
I feel I understand why it's done; Yogani tends fairly strongly that way, too -- an approach that I utterly respect, but yet, can't agree with, 100%, at least in terms of my own expression (and, as I'm fairly sure Yogani agrees, multiple views about the nature of {pardon the e-word -->) enlightenment from the standpoint of experiencing it are not problematic in and of themselves {i.e. I literally am not capable of seeing Yogani's expressions regarding enlightenment as anything other than perfect; ditto my own; ditto anyone's, actually} -- but referring to those who are speaking in-from-as the experiencing of it -- slightly different emphases regarding the specific qualities is not any kind of an issue ... again: it's literally perfect -- especially, since, ultimately they can only boil down to slightly-differently-shaded road-signs, anyway .... all of which say:
Come See For Yourself.
At certain levels of development, in terms of awakening (i.e. "not") ... there's a tendency to hold up what someone else said about enlightenment as evidence that someone else's enlightenment (or realization, or condition of being a Jnani, or breakthrough into the natural state) is not actual, which, from the experiencing of (pardon the e-word again; "I'm trying" ... kind of ... really .... ) enlightenment, does not compute, on any level.
It would be if someone tried to tell you (Anthem) that you don't experience life from the subjective standpoint of a male human body, during day-to-day living, because (they say) someone who obviously knows, because that (almost always dead) person had a ten-dollar name, or started a religion, or had a zillion followers, or whatever, says that "being male" isn't like that at all.
How would you respond? I'm guessing you might kind of shrug bemusedly, and say something like, "Okay."
Someone else (experiencing life from the standpoint of being male, or, if experiencing life from the standpoint of being female, then female) might argue, or become defensive, or whatever ... but for the vast majority of us, our sense of gender, in terms of the body-mind we primarily experience life "via" is strong enough, that we literally couldn't, for even the briefest moment, consider that the other person's presumably-dead teacher might be correct, and that we might not be male/female.
Multiply that by a good billion or so, and that's how it sounds to hear/see, "Well, there's nothing you can actually say is absolutely the absolute, or the ultimate, or supreme -- especially if you call it enlightenment."
Imagine standing at the top of the CN Tower, enjoying the view, and having a phone/online conversation with someone who keeps saying, "Well, there may be something you can call the CN tower, but there's certainly no actual top to it."
Again, what can you say?
"Okay ....." probably pretty much sums it up, yes?
But, back to Yogani's approach, one which you (Anthem) seem to be emulating, or closely modeling, if I understand correctly:
In almost every environment, including AYP (and especially AYP, per that perfection-thing I mentioned) ... it likely is the superior approach.
Why?
Because for every person who can be positively influenced toward waking up by the direct statements of a Nisargadatta or a Ramana or a Jed McKenna or even a Kirtanman ... the vast, vast majority are still living from-as the dreams of being the forms of their minds, and so, they either can't open to the comprehension of what's being said, OR (far more likely, as we see here at the forum all the time), they'll pull out the teachings of their guru-du-jour, or the pop-teachings of their favorite "enlightened teacher", or the writings of some dead guy with a ten-dollar name .... and want to argue, or at least discuss-at-great-length, why their conceptions of enlightenment are better than someone else's conceptions of enlightenment, and/or anyone else's experiencing of (sorry, gotta say it .... ) enlightenment, if it doesn't match up with their conception of what they think the thought-conception-influencing teacher-author-guru they're citing is saying about enlightenment).
This is a great recipe, all-in-all ..... for continued dreaming, for a very long time.
Yogani is on a very wise mission of encouraging people to "come see for yourself" by prioritizing (by engaging in, daily) practices. Period.
It's very wise because it works.
I can say it works, because it worked for me.
None of that, though, is at odds with my own expression of "come see for yourself; it's real -- I'm telling you directly: it's real -- and I'm telling you, exactly as Yogani is telling you, practicing, and thus seeing for yourself, is the only way for you to know-be-live this, in experience."
(And I thank you, Anthem, for the help, via this dialog, in helping my own expression to be more clear; I hope it's coming across that way, to you and to others).
I'd also say that it's not at odds with your emphasis, either -- other than I'm concerned that you seem to be saying that the breakthrough into the absolute/true nature (by any name) isn't pinpointable, and/or isn't a big deal, per your continued emphasis on the experiencing of knowing-in-form, rather than awareness-as-wholeness of the infinite-formless we actually are, which contains, precedes, supersedes and succeeds all form, and the ever-shifting displays thereof.
The breakthrough into the absolute/true nature is the whole point; it's the shift from Big-D Dreaming-Delusion, to Big-A Awake .... as in, when the Buddha had finished his meditation under the Bodhi tree, and was asked, "Are you a god? Are you a man?" -- and the Buddha replied, simply and oh-so-pertinently: "I am awake."
As Jed McKenna says: "Enlightenment is just a fancy word for awake."
The breakthrough into the absolute/true nature is the entire purpose of yogic (and every other kind of spiritual) practice, all over the world, and all throughout history.
It's the difference between dreaming we're alive and being alive.
And so, it is simply my genuine view that utterly minimizing any emphasis or sense-of-value concerning it, might not be the most useful approach, overall, in terms of the benefits, or lack thereof, it might have for anyone reading any words we write, or statements we make, here, or elsewhere.
"That's all."
quote:
This quote you shared summarizes it beautifully:
quote:
I am consciousness and bliss. I am Shiva, I am Shiva.
Yogani points out very well in the AYP enlightenment milestones that the two go hand in hand, first the rise of witness 24/7, in other words knowing yourself as consciousness, not body, emotions, thoughts, or objects of any kind in an uninterrupted way. Therefore no moments where the perceiving (witness) thinks it is “I”, “me”, emotions, thoughts, body, etc.. Yogani points out that this usually comes first and has been my experience as well. Adyashanti also speaks to this as well.
Yes; mine, too. I agree with this.
quote:
This evolves and although Jed says bliss has nothing to do with it, they are intrinsically tied together in enlightenment as the AYP lessons clearly point out.
Ah; I think I just got it!
Just as you kindly advised me not to get "caught up" in your use of a certain word (and it was good and helpful advice; thanks!) ... I'll advise the same regarding Jed's use of the word "bliss".
As I feel he makes quite clear, Jed isn't referring to actual bliss as experienced in truth-realization (Jed uses this term a lot ..... is this better than enlightenment? I kinda like it better, actually) .... but rather to the euphoric blissed-out-ness that many spiritual practitioners confuse with the changeless bliss of satchidananda (which could probably have been translated almost as accurately as "peace").
The two states are actually utterly un-related.
The former is scenery -- and thus, all are advised against putting to much stock in related states, by everyone from Abhinavagupta to Patanjali to Yogani to many of us here, because they are distractions, and are thus almost guaranteed to be a detraction from the primary goal (Big-A Awakening, by any name).
The latter (actual ananda) is the manifestation of living from awareness-wholeness; as Abhinavagupta says (paraphrasing slightly; I don't have the quote in front of me, but I know it fairly well) - "The bliss experienced in liberation is not the bliss of being with our beloved, or of seeing a long-lost relative, but rather, like that of a man who has recovered a lost treasure, or who has recovered from a long illness."
Consider how they (the different types of bliss) differ.
The first two types are euphoric, and sure to dissolve quickly.
The latter two (as analogies regarding permanent bliss) are much more relief than euphoria.
Jed McKenna makes it quite clear, throughout his books, that this latter type of bliss is an inherent aspect of his experience of abiding non-dual awareness as he calls it.
quote:
Yogani mentions the third stage of enlightenment is the arising bliss/ love 24/7, sat-chit-ananda I think it is called (my knowledge of the scriptures is very limited, so please forgive me if I have spelled this wrong).
Per what I just wrote above, though: Jed's statements and Yogani's are not in any kind of conflict.
"Truth is one; people describe it in various ways", as the Rig Veda saw fit to point out, so very long ago (as in: people have apparently being "comparing truth" for a very, very long time! )
quote:
We are love/ bliss, the One, like the quote above says. All perceived is not what we are and yet also what we are simultaneously. It is a paradox.
Or not. To the mind, maybe. As beingness-now, there's no paradox at all; it's more a spectrum.
Our infinite self on the one end; focus on manifested form (which is simply another facet of the infinite awareness-wholeness we each and all actually ever are now) on the other, and back again, ever-now.
Perceiving that which we perceive as NOT what we are is the error.
(Which likely seems to contradict some other things I've said in this thread; words are duality-makers; that's gonna happen).
The perceived is contained within perceiving which is contained with the perceiver; in wholeness-awareness, no distinction is made - actually; the artificial distinctions between perceiver-perceiving-perceived doesn't arise.
It's solely awareness-actuality ... with actuality known-experienced-now as simply another aspect of awareness, which it actually is, of course.
quote:
So you asked where does Jed say something that is not accurate and from my experience when he speaks to enlightenment not having anything to do with bliss/ love, this is not accurate.
Again, though: context, context, context. When I read what he says about bliss, I agree with him, unless there's a passage or two I don't remember (highly possible, of course) .... because, again, Jed is, in every instance I recall, dismissing pseudo-bliss, not actual bliss; he's diminishing the value of scenery, exactly as we do in AYP.
Regarding real bliss, his statement (among many others) "Nothing transcends my transcendence" sums it up quite nicely, I feel.
quote:
So let’s not get bogged down in a debate about whether Jed is or isn’t enlightened.
I agree; pointless at best, for one. And neither one of us seem so inclined, for one, again.
quote:
I would simply say it is misleading to say that enlightenment has nothing to do with bliss/love.
Hm; I dunno. Seriously.
Again, re: Jed - context, context, context.
Re: reality, enlightenment does have nothing to do with bliss/love, in terms of how unawakened mind conceives of those things.
Bliss and Love in actuality are inextricable aspects-facets of the same One Movement Now, and are infinitely more subtle and pervasive than anything mind can think, let alone anything mind does think.
Mind and thinking are exactly, specifically, what is in the WAY of the experiencing of Love-Bliss.
Jed says that his ongoing experiencing is best described as "awe-love-gratitude", and (therefore) best summed up by the Greek word Agape (not the same as the English word agape, which involves one's mouth and jaw).
quote:
By Jed’s own words bliss/ love isn’t his normal state
Have I mentioned context by chance?
I don't even recall Jed saying this; I do recall him saying that he has experienced mystical, unity consciousness, with no particular plans to return to it, which isn't at all saying that bliss-love isn't his normal state ... especially when Jed overtly says that his abiding non-dual awareness, qualitatively, consists of awe-love-gratitude.
Likely one of the reasons I resonate so much with Jed, is:
This is essentially an identical description of my abiding non-dual awareness, including the "Yeah, I experienced woo-hoo unity; don't much care about it, though" -- because that's like a fireworks show, albeit the ultmate universal one; abiding non-dual awareness is REAL.
Consider: why might as least two of us (three, at least, because I've heard Adyashanti say this same thing, many many times) who say we know something about abiding non-dual awareness (Jed, Adya and me - to name just three; there's a lot more ... I think almost any teacher most of us could agree is enlightened/realized/whatevered-that's-equivalent -- including Katie, Yogani, etc. etc. etc. -- has said similar things, as well) say we've experienced complete, actual universal unity consciousness and literally, actually not care if we ever experience it again?
Well, I'll tell you why:
Because, no matter how awesome such states are .... they're states; they pass; they're displays; transitory.
Abiding Non-Dual Awareness means all three of those things (Abiding, Non-Dual and Awareness).
Do you get the implications, yet?
Again, I'll just say it straight out:
Sitting here writing a post on the computer while listening to Matisyahu and significantly considering eating some awesome Chinese food in the very near future is better than universal unity consciousness. But only infinitely, again -- because it's REAL; the artificial distinctions that words seem to convey (words are actually designators, rather than arbiters of reality) are utterly absent.
Words really can't convey it -- the closest I can come to doing so, at least right now, is:
Prior to truth-realization, separation seemed real.
Now, whether separation is real or not can't even be considered. What could be the point of so doing?
Awareness-actuality is I-This-Happening.
That's All - Actually.
Historically, enlightenment has been made into such a HUGE deal; on the one hand, yes, it's only worth everything -- but on the other hand, all it is, REALLY -- is the restoration to our natural condition of living unbound from belief in limitation, which is always false and always artificial.
I'll try to summarize it (for now) very briefly:
A while back, language arose. It was a very useful tool, but quickly became confused with reality; people came to think of "you" and "I" as actual, separate beings-entities, as opposed to the temporary designators ("You plow field; I slay Mammoth ...") they actual are. Quote-civilization-unquote ensued, with all its crazy beliefs of us-and-them, right-and-wrong, addictive behaviors and attempted control (hey, if we really are limited, fallible and mortal, changing our internal state directly, or changing our internal state by attempting to force actuality to do what limited mind thinks it should do .... is as good as it gets).
"And now look" (Watch the evening news; walk through your neighborhood, surf the Web, etc.)
All "enlightenment" (by any name) is, is the restoration of *balance* between awareness and actuality, without the artificial layer of ego-evaluating-concluding grossly-distorting it all, thus causing us to be blind to what we actually are (unbound awareness), and to confuse the forms of actuality-displayed-as-ego-interprets, with actual-actuality.
As I've said elsewhere: it's like squinting with our minds for our entire lives.
"Enlightenment" is simply no longer squinting.
It's not an achievement; it's a relaxation.
quote:
But by Yogani’s milestones and by the expressing words of many sages it will eventually come to that as the experience deepens and continues.
I don't think anyone involved-or-cited disagrees, including Jed McKenna or myself.
Jed even says that the transition from first experiencing enlightenment, to being fully "settled into it" is usually roughly as decade or so in duration; Adyashanti and others have given similar time frames. Jed's statement is based on his own experiencing of abiding non-dual awareness being over twenty years in duration to date, and so, he's citing the decade-long figure, from his own experience.
quote:
Yogani, Byron Katie and Don Miguel Ruiz are three examples of those who speak of bliss/ love as there state of beingness 24/7.
I don't know Don Miguel's teachings well enough to say if I agree, but I trust that you do.
Re: Yogani and Katie, I would say: well, yes, but my sense of it is that they mean this in a sense that's similar to what I described above (though one or both of them would have to confirm this, of course).
And, per above, Jed McKenna just uses different words to describe the same abiding non-dual awareness, as far as I can tell.
One of the reasons this seems true to me, is that I hear or read Yogani's descriptions, or Katie's, or Jed's, and then compare them to my own experience and/or descriptions ... and I understand that we're all referring to the same abiding non-dual awareness; the same enlightenment; the same awareness-actuality.
Exact experiential qualities in form, will of course vary; the awareness-wholeness, the infinite-conscious-subjectivity - Shiva, the "subject who can never be an object" as Kashmir Shaivism so brilliantly states, is, as Shankara wrote back in the 8th Century, or thereabouts:
I am beyond all things.
I am everlasting, self-luminous,
taintless, and completely pure.
I am immovable, blissful, and imperishable.
I am without thought, without form.
I am all pervasive, I am everywhere, yet I am beyond all senses.
I am neither detachment nor salvation nor anything that could be
measured.
I am consciousness and bliss. I am Shiva, I am Shiva.
No one I've ever seen or heard, whose realization-enlightenment seems to be authentic, as said anything substantially different than this, including Jed McKenna, and including myself.
We may all use slightly different words to describe it, but Shankara hit a fairly effective home run, accuracy-wise, with the words above.
Form doesn't have those qualities.
Abiding Non-Dual Awareness does, however it's described.
And, by the way: Jed emphasizes, quite often in fact, that all the vacillations of "Jed the guy's" body-mind are, A. Not Disturbing ("nothing transcends my transcendence"), and B. Never, ever, confused with reality, and more than an actor or actress actually believes they're their role; believing we're limited to the conceptual limitations of our role, our role-related thoughts, our role-related form, is unenlightenment.
Enlightenment is simply restoration of our inherent, abiding awareness of this that we each an all ever actually are, now.
We don't become liberated, or unbound --- because we've never actually been bound -- awareness doesn't become unbound; awareness is unbound.
We don't hop off the wheel of samsara; we were never actually on it in the first place but only dreaming we were, per the narcotizing effects of confusing language-derived designations and concepts with actuality.
... and so on and so forth.
quote:
If he hasn't already, as he identifies less and less, Jed will eventually know the bliss/ love of enlightenment 24/7.
Oh, he does already --- he just uses different terms than you're used to seeing, apparently.
And, just out of curiosity -- upon what are you basing your preference of Yogani's, Katie's and Don Miguel's descriptions, over Jed's?
Today, a spontaneous bit of intuition popped up that I'll share here:
It came to me that the reason it's so easy for me to like the teachings and statements of so many various people, including those that many find unpalatable for reasons which mystify me, like Jed McKenna -- is that I have no interest in seeing where they're wrong, but rather, where they're right.
And so, I didn't compare Jed to anything I'd read before, but read him with open non-dual awareness, and concluded: "Yep, he's describing it all quite well!" --- hence this thread.
It never occurred to me to refrain from recommending Jed because he can be direct; for me, that would be like refraining from recommending Nisargadatta for the same reason, which I would never do, either.
"Direct" is almost always more true, not less true.
quote:
quote:
They show fixed attachment on the part of the conditioned personality.
We are not the conditioned personality.
We are unbound awareness.
True we are unbound awareness, all arises within That, never an argument with this point. The point or distinction I am making though is that the conditioned personality (our stage if you will in the theater of life) that is our experience of duality, which dictates our experience of physical reality, will continue to evolve, as it has always done prior to the realization of True Nature. There will be a continuous seeing through form that continues on, all the while we Witness as unbound awareness.
well, yes, but unless I misunderstand greatly, the witness-state discussed in AYP, and abiding non-dual awareness, are not at all the same thing.
Qualitatively, they actually are, but usually, "experience of the witness" is kind of an interim-stage phenomenon, that A. Tends to be filtered through dual-mind in very short order (i.e. "I was in the witness-state, but now I'm not"), and B., that gives way to deeper, more pervasive states of unbound awareness, which are preliminary to the permanent breakthrough into abiding non-dual awareness (which, contrary to a lot of accounts, is at least as often as not, I'd say, not experienced as a dramatic, single experience; it's more that dual-mind, limited-mind, ego -- whatever we want to call the fundamentally incorrect idea of being partial, incomplete and destructible, finally dissolves all the way --- but because the entire error is mis-identification with form, this tends to happen very gradually, and so, the complete dissolution is often noticed after the fact, or as a very smooth final transition).
As Adyashanti says: "Realization is dramatic and temporary; enlightenment is normal and permanent."
Enlightenment-by-any-name is our natural state; all we have to do to know-experience-be this is to stop dreaming.
Jed McKenna describes the basics of what is needed in order to do this as well as anyone I've ever seen.
So does Yogani.
So does Katie.
So do quite a few others.
We live in a very blessed age, access-to-enlightened-teachers-wise, and we don't have to pick any one of them, or compare them to each other, based on memory and evaluation.
We can intuitively discern what's of value, and forget the rest; we might as well get used to doing that, anyway -- it's basically a pre-requisite to enlightenment that Jed McKenna sums up beautifully (in my view) - "Asking 'What is true?' is the only koan or mantra anyone ever really needs."
Now, to the literal-minded, he could appear to be "dissing meditation" (which he does).
I don't care about that; I figure: he probably doesn't know about AYP, and besides, it's not the meditation that matters, anyway -- it's how people relate to it ... and Jed's dissing of that dynamic is spot on .... how do you think people manage to meditate for decades without waking up?
If any one approach worked, head and shoulders above all others, for anyone who had a nodding acquaintance with it .... we'd all be doing only that one practice, until we awakened into truth-realization, wouldn't we?
Practices are key; if we had to pick one approach, I'd still go with practices -- mostly because I can say, from experiences, that having practices as the core of our spiritual life can work, because it worked for me.
What *also* worked for me, however, was at the same time, paying very, very close attention (i.e. asking, via inquiry, observation and the feedback of experience) "what is true?", essentially every moment, just as Nisargadatta, Adya and others did.
NOT doing this tends to create the dynamic of people who meditate for decades and don't awaken ... although AYP is quite powerful as mitigating the effects of limited thinking, purely via the results of practices .... but I still don't know that I've ever seen or heard of anyone who has awakened all the way, by engaging in "practices" alone (meaning: sitting practices, a la AYP) alone -- which is why AYP introduced Inquiry some time back, and is always evolving into higher-level (more open/expanded) practices and views.
Even non-dual Kashmir Shaivism confirms that practices are essential - but sitting practices are only one type; inquiry, observation and sustaining thought-free awareness in daily life (and many other types of activities and uses of facets of consciousness) are practices, as well.
Ultimately, everything is a practice, prior to awakening all the way -- then nothing is; it's all known-being as the wholeness now.
quote:
So after what you call enlightenment, the realization of knowing ourselves as unbound awareness. Love/ bliss expands, the perception of Oneness deepens and is perceivable in all that there is, the veil falls ever away and is increasingly seen through.
Ah - got it finally - and no, that's not exactly how it is, and that's not exactly what I've been saying or referring to, in this thread.
The key words are the part of your statement above "the veil falls ever away and is increasingly seen through."
The condition-being-whatever that I'm referring to, in-as experience, that I've been calling enlightenment is the exact point (and form-wise, t/hereafter), when:
"the veil falls completely away" - the point at which the veil itself is gone, utterly, and realized to have been a dream.
This seems to be the single point of confusion, here.
Yes, in form, experience deepens, but what I'm calling enlightenment is the utter, irrevocable knowing-being that what we actually are is ever, utterly, completely independent of form.
That's why and how Jed McKenna and/or I, or anyone else who is truth-realized can have personality-moments; personality-moments go with the body-mind, likes itches and belches and sneezes and stuff.
Form is reaction-reflection-effect; awareness is.
How much does sneezing affect your sense of where you are spiritually, or who you actually are?
"Ditto" hating Californians for Jed McKenna, or being Californian for me; that's all part of the story, the play; the display; a billion years from now, we won't even remember what a California is, let alone feel identity with it; and awareness still is -- not as a concept, not as an idea; awareness ever is, actually -- when you are the awareness, consciously, utterly, there's no non-knowing of this; there can't be, any more than you (Anthem) could not-know your sense of being a male human, all of a sudden.
The words make it sound all big-dealy.
It's only big-dealy from the side of the dream.
In reality, when the dream falls away, everything I'm saying is solely what is; only artificial distinctions, with which we've all (meaning: these body-minds) been conditioned from before we could talk, could make up dream otherwise.
Unenlightenment is made-up
Even enlightenment is relative, and only an indicator of the what is real.
Our true nature is awareness-actuality, per Shankara's words above; these body-minds are like nerve-endings or sense-organs, not in a meta-mystical way, but, rather, in a "how they relate to what we actually are" way.
quote:
Continuous expansion of awareness.
In form, yes. In truth-realization, inherent ever-independence from relative expansion-contraction-more expansion is experienced as actual.
It's kind of a dimension thing: absolute awareness is "meta" to relative change.
Thus, the breakthrough into knowing-being absolute awareness in actuality forever resolves our knowing-being of what we actually are (this that is inherently ever-independent of relative change) back to its natural state - and so, change continues relatively, but is experienced very very differently -- primarily with infinitely more ease, and nearly-infinitely less attention.
quote:
Loving service expands and devotion to all that Is because it is what we are.
That's one of those statements that I can see-experience as true from one angle, but see as very potentially misleading, from another (and said, of course, with complete respect, as always; part of me finds it quite beautiful, too).
However -- what does it *mean*?
Adyashanti says, "The world is not my concern; it is myself."
I can say the same.
"Loving service" can involve just being the conscious-awareness of this, which matters far more than most suppose.
However, your statement above seems to imply the "loving service" is some kind of criteria, or that devotion is; not so.
Both of these can be supports and tools to get to truth-realization, but they have nothing to do with truth-realization itself.
Yes, Wholeness, and what I call Loving are part of things, but so inherently so, that I can pretty much guarantee you that no one who's experiencing abiding non-dual awareness notices or considers their degree (referring to their body-mind) of "loving service" or "devotion" -- how could they? The very consideration or noticing implies infinitely too much duality (i.e. "any").
quote:
Serving another is serving ourselves. We meet others through that love/ bliss that is our true nature which is compassionate and kindness in essence.
Okay, sure --- and if you've been in a horrible accident, and are drowning in your own blood, and and a physician at the scene literally punches a hole in your throat with a pocket knife while screaming profanities ("I need to f---in' trake this guy, or he's dead! Get a f---in' medevac chopper on the ground, f---in' NOW!!"), while taking apart a cheap little pen, in order to suck blood out through that hole in your throat, while blowing life-preserving air into your lungs through that same hole ................ is that doctor doing anything *other* than demonstrating the ultimate in compassion and kindness?
It may be a different picture than our minds usually have of compassion and kindness .... but, especially if she (the doctor described above) saves your life, are you going to consider her actions to be anything else (other than compassion and kindness), and be anything other than truly rather grateful, even with all that throat-slitting, swearing-yelling, and blood-sucking and what-not?
Jed McKenna can help people wake up.
Anyone who can help people wake up is like a doctor who knows how to perform an emergency tracheotomy (described above) ----- "exceptionally useful at the right time."
All objections to Jed seem to be that he's:
A. "Not a doctor" (he is a doctor, in the same sense that I am, in the same sense that anyone awake is -- a "Doctor of Assisting Awakening" {not all of us may be "actively practicing", but we have the applicable awareness-knowing, just as a medical doctor does, in their own realm}-- so I can vouch for him -- he's a doctor), or B. That he's not as nice as doctors are supposed to be.
Now, if you were the accident victim above, you might want to say "Whoa, whoa - Doctor -- [i]language[i]!!", but per all that blood of yours that you're drowning in, you'd be unable, and per all that focus on actively not-dying -- I'd bet you almost anything, that even if you were the most profanity-averse person on the planet, that after the whole not-dying thing was resolved, and you were out of shock and off life-support and what-not, that you would:
A. Feel very, very, very grateful to that doctor.
&
B. Out of good taste, or more likely, simple non-remembering, have no inclination, whatsoever, to bring up the doctor's high-volume profanity "at the scene".
So it goes with Jed McKenna, with the exception that I've never heard or read of him yelling, and he swears hardly at all (more than most spiritual teachers do publicly, maybe, but a lot less, for instance than I do, in daily conversation! <-- And, btw, I'm not talking angry-swearing; purely conversational-peppering).
"Profanity is punctuation."
~Kirtanman
quote:
Can a realized sage bludgeon someone with the truth? Only everytime it is asked for by someone can you be sure that the hammer of truth will be swung, if it takes the form of anger you can be sure there is a loving heart underneath.
Huh?
I'm all confused now -- who's bludgeoning who? And with what?
"Clarification genuinely appreciated."
Bludgeoning someone with truth seems kind of like bludgeoning someone with space ..... "challenging to say the least."
quote:
Thank you for this conversation it has helped this body mind to express and see with more clarity.
Thank you, too -- it's enjoyable, and hopefully (our conversation, in this thread) useful to all reading, as well.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jul 09 2010 10:08:11 PM |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Jul 09 2010 : 06:44:31 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman
Didn't have time to read all your post but just on the point
quote:
as opposed to any longer confusing duality and form as having anything to do with our true nature.
Came across a piece of dialogue yesterday as follows:
I'm not talking theory. I'm talking about what I've seen in people. I've seen both kinds of effort work together, both in teaching spiritual practice and in doing therapy. I think what you say is true—a fundamental shift does occur in the way one relates to one's experience through spiritual practice. But it feels a little more complex to me. I would say both the personal identifications and the nonidentification with experience are quite real. I both am and am not that person. It's not that from this perspective I am and from that perspective I am not. Both are true: I both am and am not. I remember a conference in New York with His Holiness the Dalai Lama where someone started to raise a question about these two levels of reality, the relative and the absolute. They prefaced their remark with a comment about the relative level, saying, "Of course, I know that this ultimately isn't real . . . " His Holiness interrupted them right away and said, "Stop. It's very real. And if you deny its reality, you will create much suffering for yourself."
The full interview is here:
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazi...r.asp?page=1
Cheers |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 09 2010 : 5:36:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by Sparkle
Hi Kirtanman
Didn't have time to read all your post but just on the point
quote:
as opposed to any longer confusing duality and form as having anything to do with our true nature.
Came across a piece of dialogue yesterday as follows:
I'm not talking theory. I'm talking about what I've seen in people. I've seen both kinds of effort work together, both in teaching spiritual practice and in doing therapy. I think what you say is true—a fundamental shift does occur in the way one relates to one's experience through spiritual practice. But it feels a little more complex to me. I would say both the personal identifications and the nonidentification with experience are quite real. I both am and am not that person. It's not that from this perspective I am and from that perspective I am not. Both are true: I both am and am not. I remember a conference in New York with His Holiness the Dalai Lama where someone started to raise a question about these two levels of reality, the relative and the absolute. They prefaced their remark with a comment about the relative level, saying, "Of course, I know that this ultimately isn't real . . . " His Holiness interrupted them right away and said, "Stop. It's very real. And if you deny its reality, you will create much suffering for yourself."
The full interview is here:
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazi...r.asp?page=1
Cheers
Hi Sparkle,
Thanks for this.
I agree with the Dalai Lama, with respect to the quotation you posted.
I'm not saying that the relative (form) is unreal; I'm saying incorrect ideas about the relative (form) are unreal and distorting.
And I agree that personal identifications are quite real, when they're happening, but again --- ideas about them, and depending upon what level of personal identification is meant, the ideas that produce them (personal identification ideas) are illusory, and based in illusion.
All I'm saying, in saying "as opposed to any longer confusing duality and form as having anything to do with our true nature.", is that, as Ramana Maharshi emphasized many times, releasing dehatma buddhi (the "I am the body idea") allows for the Self (Ramana's term) to be realized.
Buddhism might call it original clarity or some such, and I might call it original awareness ... but all of us are actually talking about the same things, and in agreement, it seems; we're just using somewhat different terms and phrasing, is all (I'd say).
I hope that helps clarify.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jul 09 2010 5:38:18 PM |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Jul 11 2010 : 12:08:14 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
well, yes, but unless I misunderstand greatly, the witness-state discussed in AYP, and abiding non-dual awareness, are not at all the same thing.
From my understanding of the AYP lessons, they are one and the same, the first stage of enlightement in the AYP enlightenment milestones once it is established 24/7, i.e. no more identifying. Stage 2 and 3 of the enlightenment milestones talk about the merging of subject and object. Lesson 109 describes it well here:
quote:
Before the witness, we were dragged every which way by our thoughts and emotions, because we were identified with them as our self. With the silent witness we experience our self beyond all that, so thoughts and emotions become like objects we can redirect before they manifest outwardly.
quote:
quote:
quote:
So after what you call enlightenment, the realization of knowing ourselves as unbound awareness. Love/ bliss expands, the perception of Oneness deepens and is perceivable in all that there is, the veil falls ever away and is increasingly seen through.
Ah - got it finally - and no, that's not exactly how it is, and that's not exactly what I've been saying or referring to, in this thread.
The key words are the part of your statement above "the veil falls ever away and is increasingly seen through."
The condition-being-whatever that I'm referring to, in-as experience, that I've been calling enlightenment is the exact point (and form-wise, t/hereafter), when:
"the veil falls completely away" - the point at which the veil itself is gone, utterly, and realized to have been a dream.
This seems to be the single point of confusion, here.
Yes, I agree, the veil falls away completely in terms of no longer being identified as "i", "me", in your words: waking up from the dream", no "me" no "i" etc. When I wrote the "veil" above, I am referring to the continuous process of seeing through the veil of the physical world that will go on so long as we continue to look through the senses/ lense of the person/ body. In other words the expanding sensory perception of Oneness, seeing ourselves literally in all objects, seeing beyond the ways we dream our physical circumstances, seeing beyond all asumptions we have about the world, knowing and seeing ourselves as the underlying energy of the One etc. and the resulting rise of devotion, love and service.
quote:
I'm calling enlightenment is the utter, irrevocable knowing-being that what we actually are is ever, utterly, completely independent of form.
From my perspective, this is the first stage of enlightenment and I believe in-line with the AYP description of it. What comes next is seeing the Self in all form, there is no form it is all just One. Not as a concept, not as a memory of an experience, but as a perceptual and continual perceiving.
I just found this in lesson 122:
quote:
Ultimately, our enlightenment is not about us. It is about everyone else. The first stage of enlightenment is the rise of an ongoing inner silence -- a temporary separation. The second and third stages are about joining with the divine rising dynamically in ourself and in others (this is where ecstasy and pratyahara come in, not much before). Going beyond stage one (inner silence/witnessing) is not an inert do nothing process. It involves the rise of devotion, and engaging our pure bliss consciousness in the further processes of enlightenment, which include practices and involvement in the world. It is a natural evolution, part of which is in our deciding to participate.
Lesson 157 also describes the transition well from knowing one- self as unbound awareness to the rise of the divine as oneself in all things which are really just One.
quote:
quote:
Loving service expands and devotion to all that Is because it is what we are.
That's one of those statements that I can see-experience as true from one angle, but see as very potentially misleading, from another (and said, of course, with complete respect, as always; part of me finds it quite beautiful, too).
However -- what does it *mean*?
Adyashanti says, "The world is not my concern; it is myself."
I can say the same.
"Loving service" can involve just being the conscious-awareness of this, which matters far more than most suppose.
However, your statement above seems to imply the "loving service" is some kind of criteria, or that devotion is; not so.
Sorry if this was misleading, not suggesting it is a criteria, more of a symptom.
quote:
quote:
Can a realized sage bludgeon someone with the truth? Only everytime it is asked for by someone can you be sure that the hammer of truth will be swung, if it takes the form of anger you can be sure there is a loving heart underneath.
Huh?
I'm all confused now -- who's bludgeoning who? And with what?
"Clarification genuinely appreciated."
A sloppy analogy, apologies. It was basically trying to say the same thing as your doctor analogy.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Jed McKenna
