|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
 Posted - Jul 11 2010 : 8:20:53 PM
|
Hi Anthem,
Originally posted by Anthem11
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.
quote:
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.
No worries; I should probably review the model afresh.
As I said in my last post (immediately after the quote from me, above) - it (witness state) is not different than unbound awareness, but is usually experienced as being different, because of form-based, form-oriented evaluations, which tend to throw the "artificial I" into the mix (i.e. "I am experiencing the witness state) ... at least in the beginning phases of experiencing the witness.
I'll go as far as to say that plain ol' inner silence is non-different than non-dual awareness ... it's just inverted ("I experienced inner silence") from reality ("silence experiencing").
quote:
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.
Yes, this is also an interim stage, beyond the initial witness stage; that was my experience, too.
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
Okay, cool (another point of agreement).
quote:
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.
I'm not quite sure I get this, or rather, my experience doesn't seem to be the same as what you're describing here -- but maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.
In my experience, the "veil" is the conceptual evaluation of separation and distinction.
With that absent, the world (i.e. form, objects) is experienced in awareness, as non-separate from awareness ... which is the abiding experience, here, these days (<-- working *really* hard to avoid saying "my experience" for obvious reasons .... {i.e. the likelihood of someone saying "wait ... *my*?"}  ).
quote:
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.
Ah, cool (this is great -- another pertinent and helpful clarification, that will hopefully help me to clarify my experience, as well ).
You may be confusing (per my confusing you  ) initial realization of "no {limited} self", with what I'm calling enlightenment.
The difference between the two, is:
Realization is the initial experience, which then deepens in form, as you described above.
Ah, and I just got it; I hadn't caught the nuance regarding the veil.
When I say "the veil falls completely away", I don't mean the "veil of limited me sense" .... I mean the veil, *period*.
When the veil falls *all* the way away, it no longer has the power to distort subjectivity (the false sense of limited me) or objectivity (the conditioned evaluations so intermixed with objectivity perception that they distort our entire experiencing without there being any sense of distortion, in experience).
And so: again - what I'm calling enlightenment is "veil-less-ness", period.
None of this is from any book; I have no idea if it matches AYP's model, or any other -- it's simply my experience (aka the experience here).
And again: I don't care if it's called enlightenment, or not, or if it's applied to "me" in any way (i.e. none of this is personal; that's the illusion) --- the only importance that term has, is to say: the ultimate condition that non-dual sages such as Ramana and Nisargadatta were talking about, is the experience here, too (aka "my experience now") ... and it's equally available for all of us.
quote:
quote:
I'm calling enlightenment is the utter, irrevocable knowing-being that what we actually are is ever, utterly, completely independent of form.
quote:
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.
Well, yes, again, this is where words can get in the way.
There's a reason we use the phrase "Awareness is Wholeness", in Living Unbound -- it's about as close as words can come to the subjective experiencing of ultimate liberation and wholeness ... with the clarification that there's zero reference back to it ("Hey ... this is wholeness! Woo-Hoo!") ... it's more that as awareness-wholeness -- there's no relative reference at all; it all just is, and oneness-twoness-whateverness all just kinda fell by the wayside, somewhere; they're simply non-applicable designations, from wholeness (though they can be useful in discussing aspects of wholeness, of course).
quote:
Not as a concept, not as a memory of an experience, but as a perceptual and continual perceiving.
Agreed; Abiding Non-Dual Awareness is all three of those things (Abiding, Non-Dual, Awareness .... which are actually one thing; all three words/terms are needed to describe the actuality of it, with anything resembling accuracy).
quote:
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.
Big-time; fully agreed.
And to be clear, what I've been calling enlightenment is not the first stage, but what is beyond/before all stages.
Yes, there's a deepening, but my experience was, if I'm understanding Yogani correctly, per that lesson, was that all of those relative changes happened prior to the fundamental shift.
Although Yogani's third stage may basically be limitless; again, I should probably review the model "afresh", as I said at the beginning of this post.
As my main point has been in this thread:
Enlightenment has been described pretty much identically by those who experience it, including myself (quote-unquote).
When I read the words of Ramana Maharshi, what he calls the experience of the Jnani is my experience (and *no*, I'm not calling myself a "jnani", or anything else; I'm solely attempting to communicate clearly and accurately). When I read the words of Nisargadatta concerning the "jnani" experience, this is my experience, as well. Ditto Jed McKenna, ditto Adyashanti.
So, if you're saying they're all at the "first stage of enlightenment" per the AYP model, I *really* need to review the model (and *really* work on my own clarity in communication, which has apparently been "way lacking", if you've understood me to say things that led you to feel I meant that first stage; not the case at all, I assure you).
quote:
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.
I wonder if Yogani was referring to a temporary knowing, re: the first stage?
The reason I ask:
In my own experience, the experience of "all as One" *preceded* what I'm calling enlightenment.
It's not that Jed McKenna, or Nisargadatta or I, or anyone else who's actually "left the {dream} building", so to speak "have a ways to go" ..... that's not it at all.
It's that we see and know it all as it actually is, and therefore are utterly free to enjoy/be/live every facet of it ---- all of it.
As Adyashanti has said, "Enlightenment isn't freedom from being human; it's freedom to be fully human."
I mean, sure, if Jed McKenna really thought-felt he was a person, and that person "hated Californians" ... well sure, there would be ego there .... but he makes quite clear that "Jed" is the character, just as Kirtanman is the character, or any of us are the character.
There's a whole, infinitely free level-wholeness beyond *all* duality, from which we can experience duality fully-freely and perfectly.
Everything does (experience duality fully-freely and perfectly) ... the only thing that doesn't is the mistaken idea called the ego.
Living Unbound is the natural state of all life.
Including humanity.
When body-minds get irritated, or have preferences .... that's just flavor; nuance.
If I thought Jed McKenna *really* felt like a person who "hates Californians", or that he was evaluating-resisting at the level of mind .... I never would have posted about Jed in the first place.
He makes abundantly clear in his books that he is not operating from limited-mind, in actuality at all; limited-mind operates, sure, so do sweat glands. What of it?
quote:
quote:
Loving service expands and devotion to all that Is because it is what we are.
Again, though: I see Yogani's words as one of the better orientations to how it is, at a level relative-mind can understand it ... but latching on too tightly to those words, we can miss the reality of what he's saying.
In actuality, there's no separation; no non-loving, no non-devotion ..... but not at all in the ways the mind thinks of those things.
The reason for this is: they're not "things", not separate; nothing is --- there's loving devotion for "others" in the exact same way there's loving devotion for our cells -- it's inherent and automatic, and often looks quite different that mind evaluates (i.e. per this thread about Jed McKenna -- how much more loving and devoted can someone be, than to sit down and write and publish three books that can actually liberate people out of the dream ...... *that's* loving devotion, I'd say -- and do).
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
Sorry if this was misleading, not suggesting it is a criteria, more of a symptom.
Cool; got it, I'm pretty sure.
Hopefully, I've clarified my own {quote-unquote} experience, above.
quote:
A sloppy analogy, apologies. It was basically trying to say the same thing as your doctor analogy.
OK, cool; no worries.
I was applying the doctor analogy to Jed, as I made clear.
So (and I'm not presuming this is the case) .... you're saying that you *do* get how Jed's approach is equivalent (to a profanity-shouting doctor, acting in a very direct manner to save your life)?
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jul 11 2010 8:21:49 PM |
 |
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Jul 12 2010 : 5:21:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
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
Hi Kirtanman
Thanks for the explaination.
I have to say I find statements like "I am not my body" to be confusing, and it's not just me, I think it can be quite mis-leading for some people and can result in some people escaping the body to sit in supposedly higher realms where in actual fact it could be said that the body is the door to the experiencing of awareness.
When you say it means not identifying with the body, sure I get this but to me it sounds completely different.
Maybe its just me or how I was brought up in Ireland, but I have never thought of myself as the body, so "I am the body idea") allows for the Self (Ramana's term) to be realized. as you say above, would never do it for me.
What might be more relevant would be "I am not a soul", as this was the one I was stuck on for so long, this is my upbringing.
Not critizing you on this, just lookiing for clarification.
The term "adjacency" has been coined by Gregory Kramer, founder of Insight Dialogue to mean (my understanding) the interface between the absolute and the relative. One adjacent to another with the senses providing the doorway where this edge can be experienced.
To experience this one must be fully grounded in the body and not over to one side or the other of this edge. You mentioned "clarity" above, well this is where the clarity is, at this edge and with full embodiment.
For me, at the moment, it seems to be the open heart interfacing with awareness that cuts the mustard.
I would appreciate any comment of this from yourself or anyone else.
For me the open heart may be the purest expression of the bodily felt experience and when it interfaces with awareness it can become something else also.
So for me just limiting things to pure awareness without being prepared to feel all that the open heart brings, whether it be the nice feelings or the more painful ones is indeed limiting and would be living life at a distance from life.
Maybe this is not your experience, but this is where I am at for the moment and it is what I would consider the Dali Lama to be getting at
All the best
ps. Would also be interested in knowing where you consider awareness to be centralised in the body, if at all. Although awareness is infinate and everwhere, is it experienced in the body from a particular place such as the gut or the solar plexus, or the crown or anywhere else? |
Edited by - Sparkle on Jul 12 2010 5:30:35 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 12 2010 : 6:20:19 PM
|
Hi Anthem,
I decided to review some of what Yogani has said about enlightenment, to see if I could use his words as a bit of a catalyst, possibly, for communicating clearly here (this thread), since most of us, at least, presumably resonate at least somewhat with what Yogani says about most things, including enlightenment.
At the very least, I know I do, and it certainly seems that you (Anthem) do.
Candidly, I resonate with Yogani's more recent expressions than those made in the past --- yet, at the time I read, and "practiced per" the lessons you cited, they served as powerful beacons for me.
I was surprised to find that both the lessons you cited are from 2004 (and yet, they're both beautiful and clear expressions, I just found myself not feeling complete agreement with everything Yogani wrote, but I'm guessing that's likely more a manner of phrasing-preference, than anything else).
Simply put, though, "per that" I looked for the most recent AYP lesson on enlightenment I could find, and there's actually one that's very recent, Lesson 413, from June 2010.
From that lesson (quotes from Yogani/Lesson 413 are in blue -- with my comments below each quote from that lesson) ....
quote:
Is "perfect clarity" an end state? Is "outpouring divine love" an end state? Is enlightenment no-thing or all-things? The perceptions of these experiences are mere structures in the mind, signifying little.
Exactly. That's why I've been emphasizing that what we actually are is beyond, before and inclusive of, form.
In form, there is no end-state; in our true nature, there is no state -- all states, all changes, all form-processes, occur within this that we are.
quote:
The truth is that it is neither of these, and both of these, and there is no end to it.
I agree fully with Yogani, here; Adyashanti has made the same point, as have you, Anthem.
Enlightenment is the wholeness of the living process (including the awareness we actually are, within which all processes occur).
quote:
That is the point. Anyone who says "This is it," and stands pat on that, is missing the point, because there is no "IT," no end state.
Absolutely agreed. I've done my best to emphasize this same point, in this thread -- yet, somehow, it seems that what I've said about the changeless-ness of our true nature has been interpreted (again, by you Anthem -- and no problem / no worries -- simply re-stating my understanding, here ) somehow at odds with the reality of process and "no end state".
This isn't the case at all; I've simply been emphasizing the same thing that teachers such as Nisargadatta and Ramana have: there comes a point of living integration with the changeless-ness of our true nature; abiding non-dual awareness.
This doesn't negate the reality of process in any way; it fact, it turbo-charges the process, big-time.
However, in my experience (the only actual reference point I have, of course) ... all of the things cited in the original AYP Enlightenment model happened prior to restoration of balance between change and changeless-ness.
As I said recently in this thread:
"Enlightenment" isn't an achievement, it's a relaxation into the real; it's simply what is here, when we no longer create unenlightenment by identifying with the fallacious ideas of the "Grand Daddy" of all fallacious ideas: ego-mind.
quote:
No divorce from life, no permanent engagement in life. It is a process in the here and now.
Yes, indeed -- nothing else is possible. Here and now is the only reality ("past" and "future", and any details about those concepts, are only bits of memory-imagination happening ... when? Where? Here and now.)
And the here and now is itself a process .... contained within the changeless-ness we actually ever are now.
All I've been emphasizing, in this thread and elsewhere, is that changeless-ness is our true nature, referring to our actual being.
When we're identified with form, we're unconscious (or faux-conscious) -- but that doesn't mean form isn't real, or that form isn't an aspect of this that we are; it's both ... actually.
What I'm calling enlightenment is just the grounding in changeless awareness that is, oh-so-pertinently, real, and our true nature (what we actually ever are now).
That's why Jed McKenna says, of enlightenment:
"I don't have something you don't. You believe something I don't."
quote:
Those who say it is no-thing may find themselves a bit stuck and yet to become spiritually integrated.
Happily agreed.
Another pertinent Jed-quote, "per that":
"Enlightenment isn't when you go there; enlightenment is when there comes here."
quote:
Non-involvement in life is duality.
I love that line; yes, indeed. Attachment and Aversion are two sides of the same coin, and either of the terms Identification and/or Ignorance summarize the nature of that coin almost exactly.
quote:
Those who say it is only all-things are yet to find they are the One who does nothing amidst all things.
Exactly. Knowing ourselves as the One who does nothing amidst all things is what I've been calling "enlightenment".
That doesn't mean there's non-doing, or less-doing; it simply means we've let go of attaching all that life energy to mistaken concepts, and have thus returned to the natural harmony of living.
Our true nature is not that of the doer; however, an aspect of our true nature is ever doing --- and doing, is form (or maybe, more clearly stated: forming) --- the activity-processes that display as form, now.
quote:
There is no clear answer. Those who seek a clear answer will not find one.
Very important point. That's why the Shiva Sutras kick off with Caitanyatma (Self is Unbound Awareness), and follow immediately with Jnanam Bandhah (Knowledge Is Bondage).
How can that be? Isn't becoming a Jnani, a knower, the end-all, be-all?
Not exactly.
Answers are objects in awareness; form.
Answers are to the actuality of enlightenment (or whatever we call the condition of consciously being our true nature) as a bit of frozen water from a river is to the living, moving, ever-new yet undefinable river.
Knowledge is bondage, because knowledge creates and preserves the (illusory one) who has the knowledge .... limited-subject, limited-object and limited-perception arise, display and dissolve together.
Knowing-by-Being is ever-new living now; reality, enlightenment or whatever you want to call it .... simply living in harmony with actuality, as opposed to living in a fantasy-dream of made-up concepts that are pretty much all and only about fighting reality.
As LIVE sings, in their song Run To The Water:
"Don't try to find the answer when there ain't no question here"
(That song-video is well worth watching-listening, by the way; it contains an overview of essential truth, sung beautifully, set to catchy music, and augmented by a beautifully symbolic video, all in under five minutes.)
quote:
Clarity comes when the paradox of simultaneous non-doing and doing becomes ordinary in daily experience, and there is no need to say it is this or that anymore.
Exactly; that's what I've been tryin' to say!!
quote:
It just is, and we are both in it and beyond it. This includes living through the apparent inequities in life without suffering.
Indeed it does. Yogani's right about this.
That's why I make as much "noise" about it, as I do -- it's not this-away, or that-away; it's right here, any moment the clouds of delusion are not smoke-screened over actuality any longer.
Suffering, liberation, en .......... whatever you might like to call it .... .... are real .... and most importantly: available for all of us ... all of us; being our true nature is inherently free from suffering; it's what we actually are.
quote:
There is only one way we can find out what this is about. Practice. There is a process, a path, and we can travel it – not with the conceptual mind, but with the vehicle of our neurobiology. We are the doorway, and that doorway takes us beyond the mind and all of its definitions.
Exactly.
What we are is beyond mind and beyond definitions (prior to them, containing them and comprising them, too).
We are wholeness.
Within this wholeness, living is happening.
Living can include personality traits and preferences because these are part of the happening; an aspect of what we are being-doing, somewhat similar to sweating or breathing ..... but just as we don't identify with those automatic-reactive actions of our body-minds, so there's no need to identify with automatic-reactive personality stuff or preference stuff.
It's all perfect (whole), actually.
The only problem, the only error, is the idea-sense that there's *really* a limited-me.
There's not; that's just a mistaken idea.
When we relax into the inherent wholeness we ever are, now .... all else is inherently resolved.
No more stages or states or evaluations; these may happen within us, but they are not us.
quote:
We don’t have to take anyone's word for it. Let’s practice. Then we will know.
Again: exactly. And not only don't we have to; we can't.
Knowing-Being ourselves is the only way to know at all, and in my experience, clear and accurate sign-posts are always useful ... even if they may be painted in "colors" that are a bit too .... loud .... for the preferences of some of us (i.e. jed McKenna, per this thread).
However, if we're lost and dreaming ...... *any* sign-post to Wake Up ---> THIS WAY .......... is infinitely more than merely useful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman |
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jul 13 2010 9:46:52 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 12 2010 : 8:20:04 PM
|
Hi Sparkle,
Thanks for your comments.
I'll do my best to clarify, per what you said about finding certain statements confusing.
quote:
Hi Kirtanman
quote:
Thanks for the explaination. I have to say I find statements like "I am not my body" to be confusing, and it's not just me
I understand that, and per your following comment, don't entirely disagree. The main point of my quoting Ramana Maharshi was more that I see myself as saying the same thing as many others have said, as opposed to really (intending to) delve into the specific statement, by making it (as in: it never occurred to me that Ramana's statement might be confusing).
I didn't ever find it confusing, in the sense that I knew what the words meant, but I guess I could also say that I found it confusing, in the sense that when I was first exposed to that teaching ("I am not the body"), I certainly had no sense of how that might be the case.
In experience, it's very clear, and I don't know that Buddhism (per your quoting the Dalai Lama, and your overall resonance with Buddhism, going by your past posts) teaches anything different that this ("I am not the body"), they just say it in a different way (i.e. all phenomenon are impermanent, and have no inherent reality -- i.e. the teaching of dependent origin of all phenonmenon), "everything causes everything else" as Adyashanti says, or "the gunas act upon the gunas" as the Bhagavad Gita says.
The important part of the statement isn't "body", per se; it could be mind, or soul or limited self ..... the primary point of any such statements is:
Bondage to suffering is based on identifying with aspects of ourselves, and taking them to be the whole of ourselves -- in a similar manner to thinking we are our left hand, and only our left hand.
It's not that we're exactly not our left hand --- but neither is it accurate to say we are our left hand. Probably more accurate to say our left hand is and aspect or part of a greater wholeness that is this that we are.
All I'm saying (in agreement with teachers like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Adyashanti, Yogani {per the quotes from Lesson 413 I just posted in this thread}) is:
We're more than solely the body-mind; the idea the we are only the limited body-mind is the source of all bondage and suffering.
And so, maybe it would be more accurate to say "I am not my incorrect ideas about my physical body, and the thought-structures I think of as my mind; these things are occurrences within this that I am."
Which is what Ramana meant by Dehatma Buddhi --- "I am not the body" would be "Nirdehatma", or something similar; Dehatma Buddhi is the "I am the body idea" (effectively).
quote:
I think it can be quite mis-leading for some people and can result in some people escaping the body to sit in supposedly higher realms where in actual fact it could be said that the body is the door to the experiencing of awareness.
I agree; if someone thinks "I am not the body", and therefore, attempts to escape bodily things ... that's no closer to enlightenment than someone who only knows body and limited mind; that's just the other end of the duality spectrum.
And you said it well: body is the door to the experiencing of awareness; without embodiment in consciousness (i.e. the body-mind and all else at the experiential levels), awareness is aware, but there is no experience; experiencing requires form.
I've never intended to diminish the importance of form, nor have I implied form is unreal (form, in my experience, is consummately real), I'm simply saying that form is not what we are, any more than the physical body alone is what we are (all of us experience body within mind, as opposed to animals who have awareness, but {as far as we know} no awareness of awareness).
quote:
When you say it means not identifying with the body, sure I get this but to me it sounds completely different.
Well, that's what I mean: not identifying with the body (or limited mind).
As Nisargadatta said: "I experience the same things you do, just not in the same way."
(And I'm not saying my experience of body is different than yours; I don't know what yours is, these days. )
The point Nisargadatta was making, though, is that the experience of body is not what changes in enlightenment (or whatever we call it), it's that the false ideas about the experience are gone, and so the result is the natural experience of body-mind ... which includes not walking around with the artificial and incorrect idea of "I am my body-mind and that's all I am."
quote:
Maybe its just me or how I was brought up in Ireland, but I have never thought of myself as the body, so "I am the body idea") allows for the Self (Ramana's term) to be realized. as you say above, would never do it for me.
All teachings are indicators, I'd say; some work well for some of us, some others work well for others of us -- and howwell a given teaching works for each of us, when we need it, is all that matters (regarding the usefulness of a given teaching).
quote:
What might be more relevant would be "I am not a soul", as this was the one I was stuck on for so long, this is my upbringing.
I'd say that works just as well, at least in my experience.
The main point of any such teaching, again (I'd say) is:
We are not actually any of our limitation-based or limitation-oriented ideas.
Realizing that we're not these ideas helps us to relax into reality, where questions regarding what we are, or are not, simply no longer arise.
quote:
Not critizing you on this, just lookiing for clarification.
No worries; even if you were criticizing me, I don't think I'd respond any differently.
quote:
The term "adjacency" has been coined by Gregory Kramer, founder of Insight Dialogue to mean (my understanding) the interface between the absolute and the relative. One adjacent to another with the senses providing the doorway where this edge can be experienced.
I kind of get this, and think I agree, if "senses" includes consciousness.
I've recently said that there's only awareness-actuality (absolute-relative).
It could also be said awareness-consciousness-actuality ..... consciousness being a designation for the experiencing of the intermixing (both form and formlessness are experienced in, as, through consciousness).
As Einstein famously said:
"There's only emptiness; matter is just condensed emptiness."
To paraphrase Einstein, I'd say:
There's only awareness; matter is just condensed awareness.
quote:
To experience this one must be fully grounded in the body and not over to one side or the other of this edge. You mentioned "clarity" above, well this is where the clarity is, at this edge and with full embodiment.
I agree with this, completely.
As I've quoted Jed McKenna, as recently as today, in this thread:
quote:
"Enlightenment is not when you go there, enlightenment is when there comes here."
Or, as the Shiva Sutras say: "The body is the perceptible."
Awareness-Actuality; both are real, and both are One, and this One is wholeness; inseparable (non-dual means non-dual ).
All these teachings are just saying:
Emphasizing only form, and ignoring the inherently unbound and whole intrinsic nature of awareness, misses the point as well -- and can keep the form-only, process-only focus of unenlightenment focused on form .... and thus, focused on-in-as the delusion of unenlightenment.
Form isn't unreal, and form isn't "not part of us" -- form is part of a greater whole, and that greater whole (ever containing all form now) is what we each and all ever actually are.
For instance, I don't imagine that my day-to-day experience, of being a guy, doing stuff throughout the day, is markedly different than anyone else's, in terms of the mechanics of it -- even experiencing the unboundedness of unbound awareness only happens periodically.
Thoughts happen, feelings happen; they're just not longer misinterpreted to be as something that "I'm" doing, any more than itches are something "I'm" doing.
Thus, there's no evaluation; no conceptual overlay (because the one who had those conceptual overlays was seen to be an aggregate of confused and mistaken ideas, which dissolved when it was seen through ...... with a bit of help from a few years of daily practices .... .... and thus no suffering).
quote:
For me, at the moment, it seems to be the open heart interfacing with awareness that cuts the mustard.
In my experience, open heart is a natural aspect of awareness -- awareness no longer fragmented by concepts, that is.
quote:
For me the open heart may be the purest expression of the bodily felt experience and when it interfaces with awareness it can become something else also.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here, but again, I would say - Awareness is Wholeness ..... and Awareness is Wholeness *is* Heart - Wholeness .... it's why I tend to sign my posts with the phrase "Wholeheartedly".
For me, the phrases "Unbound Awareness" and "Whole Heart" are 100% synonymous.
Unbound Awareness means just that: Unbound.
From what? From misidentifying with form as the *totality* of reality, and being unconscious of the pure, undistorted awareness that is ever the experiencer of all of this; there is nothing else ..... the only difference is that some of us are experiencing unbound awareness consciously, and others are blocking conscious experience of unbound awareness with concepts of limitation.
quote:
So for me just limiting things to pure awareness without being prepared to feel all that the open heart brings, whether it be the nice feelings or the more painful ones is indeed limiting and would be living life at a distance from life.
I agree --- wholeheartedly.
Awareness is not limited; awareness is the opposite of limited.
quote:
Maybe this is not your experience, but this is where I am at for the moment and it is what I would consider the Dali Lama to be getting at
Cool ... and, "per above", it seems that we all agree -- my expression may just not have been optimally clear, before.
I hope this post helped to clarify.
quote:
All the best
Thank you; all the best to you, too.
quote:
ps. Would also be interested in knowing where you consider awareness to be centralised in the body, if at all. Although awareness is infinate and everwhere, is it experienced in the body from a particular place such as the gut or the solar plexus, or the crown or anywhere else?
Haven't checked in a while ....... "let's find out ....".
Hm. Interesting. I just yawned, and awareness was centered in my mouth and throat. Then I noticed Bhagavan Das singing, and it was centered between my ear and my computer speaker. My right nostril itches just slightly, so now it's centered there. All referring to the objects in awareness, and focus thereupon, of course.
As far as awareness itself ..... it's just everywhere, just like always.
That's the whole key, right there:
Chopping awareness, or anything else, up into conceptual pieces just isn't pertinent. To say "I am this physical body and its aggregate of thoughts, feelings, imagined memories, conditioning", etc. -- but "I am not my computer speakers, or the itch in my nostril" - or whatever else -- simply doesn't apply, in the slightest.
"Does not compute."
Awareness doesn't exist in a vacuum, and my apologies (to all reading) if I've seem to imply that my experience is that it does.
Not the case at all.
I'm just saying there's a shift from belief in the concepts which artificially divide and separate everything as being the totality of reality, to awareness of subjective experiencing as actually being the awareness itself, and no longer artificially identifying with form (including thoughts, feelings, sense of self, etc.)
Thoughts arise here, albeit a lot less and in a much less troubling manner than in the idea of the past being thought now -- they're just not disturbing.
As Jed McKenna points out (paraphrasing, here) - "the problem resides not in that which is disturbing, but in the thing disturbed."
The "thing disturbed" is the erroneous idea called the ego.
With that erroneous idea gone, there's just wholeness, and the harmony of living, within it now.
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jul 13 2010 9:37:33 PM |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Jul 13 2010 : 9:25:15 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
Thanks for putting together those quotes above from Yogani in your post and sharing your perspective.
Sounds like we are all on the same page.
|
|
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jul 13 2010 : 9:32:20 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
I finally finished the first book and really enjoyed it.
I just don't resonate with his nihilism i.e.
JM:"Life is meaningless"...I think life is meaningFULL!
JM:"All religions are BS"...I think all religions have TRUTH!
JM: "Teeth need not be flossed"...Oh Jed... you REALLY screwed the pooch on this one...teeth really do need to be flossed!
But Jed is one funny guy (probably fictional) which I'm really glad to have been exposed to.
Thanks for the original post!
Any ideas on who the real author is? |
Edited by - machart on Jul 14 2010 12:54:37 AM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 14 2010 : 12:58:48 AM
|
Hi All,
I just wanted to let you all know about the newest Jed McKenna video on YouTube.
Mine.
Enjoy!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 14 2010 : 8:06:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
Hi Kirtanman,
Thanks for putting together those quotes above from Yogani in your post and sharing your perspective.
Sounds like we are all on the same page.
Cool - had a feeling we were.
PS- Why yes .... this may actually be my shortest post, ever.
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 14 2010 : 8:36:21 PM
|
Hi Machart,
quote:
Originally posted by machart
Hi Kirtanman,
I finally finished the first book and really enjoyed it.
Cool; if you liked the first one, I'd guess you'll like the other two, too.
quote:
I just don't resonate with his nihilism i.e.
JM:"Life is meaningless"...I think life is meaningFULL!
Not too long back, I would have reacted the same way to that kind of statement.
However, now I see it more simply and non-dually: meaninglessness isn't bad -- just accurate. Meaning is always an artificial projection, by definition.
Jed doesn't mean the statement "life is meaningless" the same way most people mean it, when they say it, by a long shot; he's simply stating the truth.
(And I'm not saying this to contradict your sense of meaningfulness - I "get" this, too, as long as we don't define the word "meaning" too literally).
Basically - maybe just remember theat nihilism, by definition, means "no belief".
As we discuss here at the forum a lot, beliefs are the illusion; the artificial thought-constructs which obscure reality (hence Jed's view).
And please note: I'm perfectly fine with everything you wrote -- I just thought a bit of additional/different perspective might be helpful in understanding where Jed is coming from (and I presume to know, solely per spending a lot of time with his material in recent weeks, and going by things he emphasizes repeatedly, in his books).
quote:
JM:"All religions are BS"...I think all religions have TRUTH!
Jed acknowledges that they do, too. However, as I said in another post -- I agree with his points that:
A. The essential diamond clarity that can be found in the teachings of all traditions is obscured by extraneous information that's essentially impossible to understand without deep knowledge of multiple layers of very esoteric symbolism --- symbolism that has been obscured and distorted by misinterpretation to the point of often being unrecognizable and useless as a tool for awakening.
B. It's really only possible to cut straight to the clarity once we're awake, and then we don't really need the information, other than to pass on to others as potentially helpful.
C. Religious truth, as any truth, can be beautiful; however, religions are organizations, or at least (in the case of Hinduism, etc.) ways of life -- and are seeking to promote codified, rigid ways of doing things. As such, they're essentially awakrning-prevention endeavors (without realizing it, I'd guess - but that doesn't make my statements here any less true).
D. Most importantly ----- what's the success rate of religion is helping people wake up? "Unspeakably Dismal" is probably far too optimistic.
quote:
JM: "Teeth need not be flossed"...Oh Jed... you REALLY screwed the pooch on this one...teeth really do need to be flossed!
LOL!! I almost sprayed pineapple fried rice all over my monitor, after reading that statement .... and I have no idea how to help a monitor floss ......
quote:
But Jed is one funny guy (probably fictional)
Well, hey, like all of us ("probably fictional"), yes?
And re: "funny" --- he gets funnier in the subsequent two books (just FYI) ... his humor is one of the reasons I like him so much (if ya can imagine).
quote:
which I'm really glad to have been exposed to.
Thanks for the original post!
You're very welcome; glad you're enjoying Jed!
quote:
Any ideas on who the real author is?
There's an Adyashanti rumor circulating (that Adya is Jed) ... and on the one hand, I can see it, a bit (a lot of Jed's anecdotes are originally Adya's - a LOT) ... however, someone wouldn't have to be super-intelligent to create a red herring (I think it's called) ... to "throw people off the scent". Plus, I don't know many other spiritual teachers that well, and so, I'm not sure if Adya-isms and anecdotes are used disproportionately, or not -- or if he has a bunch of similar ones for several different teachers.
And he discusses things that as far as I know, Adya doesn't have any connection with (sailing/boating and skydiving, to name just two). However, in the first book, he indicates he's a fairly serious cyclist (as was Adya).
"Hm."
Though, upon further reflection, Jed does write quite a bit like Yogani ...........
(**KIDDING**)
My best guess is that Jed McKenna basically is who he says he is, with the exception that I'm guessing his legal name isn't Jed McKenna, but "nom de plume"s (pen names) have been used for a very long time, and are likely a good idea for those who care a bit about being private, such as Jed obviously does.
As In: I don't think he's a "known spiritual teacher" writing under a pseudonym. I think he's an *unknown* spiritual teacher writing under a pseudonym, mostly because he wants to remain unknown.
And so, short answer: "No."
You?
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
|
|
amoux
United Kingdom
266 Posts |
Posted - Jul 15 2010 : 05:27:35 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by machart
JM:"All religions are BS"...I think all religions have TRUTH!
The thing with religions is that they are belief systems. Belief systems are built out of thought - they are thought. Thoughts/beliefs simply perpetuate the ego story. The spiritual seeker story. The "I am a religious or spiritual person" story. In other words, they shore up the delusion of the personal self.
Nothing wrong with religious beliefs per se. They're a story. Nothing wrong with stories - it's just that they aren't true.
And all of this - all of what I have just typed, is a story too. Aaaargh |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jul 15 2010 : 9:17:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by machart
JM:"Life is meaningless"...I think life is meaningFULL!
JM:"All religions are BS"...I think all religions have TRUTH!
These statements by Jed are true for the one who is standing behind the mirror/mind.
And false for the one who is standing in front of the mirror/mind.
All we need to do is shift our focus a bit.
And then you will realise that these statements are neither true nor false.
Thanks for the comments Manigma...
Unfortunately I'm the most "Unenlightened" guy I know so really have no clue as to what the Hell you are talking about...
But if you are saying " It's all done with smoke and mirrors..." I think I can agree with that.
quote:
JM: "Teeth need not be flossed"...Oh Jed... you REALLY screwed the pooch on this one...teeth really do need to be flossed!
quote:
In India, where I live, we don't use Toilet paper to clean our bottoms after defecation. We have a special water jet fixed with the seat that does the job.
In the US we call those devices bidets...and to my unenlightened mind only high class call girls use those...but you did give me an idea for another possible use for my 3000psi pressure washer...I'll let you know how it works out.
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 15 2010 : 9:55:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by machart
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by machart
JM:"Life is meaningless"...I think life is meaningFULL!
JM:"All religions are BS"...I think all religions have TRUTH!
These statements by Jed are true for the one who is standing behind the mirror/mind.
And false for the one who is standing in front of the mirror/mind.
All we need to do is shift our focus a bit.
And then you will realise that these statements are neither true nor false.
Thanks for the comments Manigma...
Unfortunately I'm the most "Unenlightened" guy I know so really have no clue as to what the Hell you are talking about...
But if you are saying " It's all done with smoke and mirrors..." I think I can agree with that.
I think he's saying that the halo represents pure awareness, and that it's only pure awareness animating all spiritual teachers.
I would add "and the rest of us, too."
We don't attain knowing we're That (aka This), but rather, we relax back into it (i.e. "the halo zone"). <- Since we all seem to have a hard time agreeing on what stuff should be called, I say we go with some cool-sounding names; why the heck not?
quote:
JM: "Teeth need not be flossed"...Oh Jed... you REALLY screwed the pooch on this one...teeth really do need to be flossed!
quote:
In India, where I live, we don't use Toilet paper to clean our bottoms after defecation. We have a special water jet fixed with the seat that does the job.
As with many members of the non-bidet-using crowd here at the forum, I have some questions as to how this works.
However, after a good half second or so of serious consideration, I've decided that I'm quite sure I don't want to hear the answers.
quote:
In the US we call those devices bidets...and to my unenlightened mind only high class call girls use those...but you did give me an idea for another possible use for my 3000psi pressure washer...I'll let you know how it works out.
LLOL!!!! (1st "L" is *Literally*!! )
Still LLOL!!!!
Dude ------ you are truly freakin' funny.
Where I come from, that's a bona-fide siddhi, right there (the humor, not the ability to used a 3000psi pressure-washer in an manner unspeakably inconsistent with the manufacturer's stated guidelines).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 01:17:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by machart
In the US we call those devices bidets...and to my unenlightened mind only high class call girls use those...but you did give me an idea for another possible use for my 3000psi pressure washer...I'll let you know how it works out.
It reminds of a joke I heard somewhere:
An American guy came to India and was invited for dinner and a stay by an Indian family.
They had a good dinner and in the morning when the american was sitting at the brakfast table. He said to the Indian "Now I undesratnd why you have these 3000PSI water jets on your toilet seats, to bluddy cool down the burns that we get from eating such spicy food."
|
|
|
|
tonightsthenight
846 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 10:12:41 AM
|
Great discussion guys.
But despite understanding the reason for the complexity of it, I can't help but think you're making it into a much bigger deal than it actually is.
I don't think you can adequately explain enlightenment because essentially it is doing the impossible: like "squaring" the circle, or reconciling the paradox.
You can feel it within.
And you can see/feel it in others I would imagine. Although ive never met an enlightened person.
But beyond that, i just don't see how you can make a science of it. Feel free to prove me wrong 
Sorry to be such a party pooper 
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 4:55:36 PM
|
Hi Tonightsthenight,
quote:
Originally posted by tonightsthenight
Great discussion guys.
But despite understanding the reason for the complexity of it, I can't help but think you're making it into a much bigger deal than it actually is.
What, specifically? (Do you feel we're making into a bigger deal than it is)?
quote:
I don't think you can adequately explain enlightenment because essentially it is doing the impossible: like "squaring" the circle, or reconciling the paradox.
"True That", as they say.
That's why the Tao Te Ching begins with the statement "the Tao which can be spoken of is not the Tao."
Enlightenment is wholeness; words are specific -- and so, I agree: words can never adequately describe enlightenment.
My purpose in this thread was simply to offer a bit of a counterpoint to what Anthem was saying (if I understood him correctly, and I'm fairly sure I did -- though, Anthem, please speak up if I outline your views incorrectly at all. ), which essentially was:
There's no fixed point that can be called "enlightenment", because there's an ongoing process, period.
I was simply saying that on the levels of form, this is true; however, at the level of dropping artificiality and living from wholeness (which I'm comfortable calling enlightenment, and which seems to be at least generally in agreement with what others, at least from non-dual paths, have said is enlightenment, as well).
My reason for this is rather simple:
Living unbound from our true nature is the whole point of the journey, and one of the reasons the apparent journey can take so long, and be experienced as so complex and arduous for so many of us, is that we don't see the fallacy of referencing form to evaluate our true nature which is beyond form, yet form as well and inclusive of it.
And so, we may experience the shift into our true nature, but then limited, division-making thinking-stories want to either claim it, or reject it, or figure it out, or whatever .... and it's missed, some more.
It's exactly like living in a two dimensional universe, experiencing the third dimension, and then using two dimensional reality to evaluate the reality of the third dimension ..... erroneous, pointless, frustrating, and not conducive to enjoying the benefits of the third dimension, a-tall.
And so, all I was saying is: there is a point that most would call enlightenment (the breakthrough into the reality of our true nature as awareness-wholeness, containing all form and experience). We know it when we experience it, and only then (because it is the subject which can never be an object and which contains all objects, and so, there's no way to "have" it, in the dream-state sense of "having knowledge", or anything else), and we keep going.
After Anthem and I established our basic views per the info above, we exchanged many, many words ... and finally agreed that we at least pretty much agree.
And so, I'm not so sure we were discussing anything complex, we simply weren't agreeing ... and were using a lot of words, to attempt to communicate -- but the essence of the discussion was pretty simple, I feel ("see above for details").
quote:
You can feel it within.
Yes.
And only within.
And it's all within.
And we only know this when we know it.
That's why discussing it all over-much is very, very VERY much second-priority to practicing, inquiring-observing, and knowing for ourselves.
quote:
And you can see/feel it in others I would imagine.
From the side of enlightenment, there's no enlightenment or unenlightenment; just wholeness.
And so, no one's truly seen as enlightened or unenlightened -- those terms are just conventions - indicators; kind of like menu items - helpful, for me, at least, to be able to say: check this guy (or woman) out; he/she gets it, and says it well -- you might want to read his/her books yourself (example: Jed McKenna, per this thread).
quote:
Although ive never met an enlightened person.
I have .... it's not a big deal.
Disclaimer: Though, as we have discussed "ad infinitum" here at the forum, there's no such thing *as* an enlightened person .... the absence of the person-story essentially is enlightenment ............. and so, if you meant it in that sense:
"Me neither, and nevermind."
("Context is our friend." )
"Enlightened people" (quote-unquote, per above) are just the people who have experienced the dissolution of artificial concepts, and simply live from-as-in reality, which includes all the perks associated with enlightenment (freedom from doubt, fear, suffering; peace-joy-bliss, etc. etc. etc.).
quote:
But beyond that, i just don't see how you can make a science of it.
Meaning what, exactly?
I don't know that I disagree; I'm just not sure I'm understanding exactly what you mean by that; if you wouldn't mind elaborating, that would be helpful (to me, at least).
quote:
Feel free to prove me wrong
Well, if you can clarify what you mean by your statement above, I may be able to elaborate/clarify my view, which is, pretty much, that the path to enlightenment is, and can be, a science.
The unscientific approach to it has been a huge part of what makes "enlightenment" seem like such a big deal, and seem so complex, as opposed to simply and actually being the natural state (which it is).
AYP has taken great strides, from the standpoint of yoga and meditation, to helping enlightenment, and the way here, to be approached scientifically -- literally -- AYP is ever-evolving, based, essentially on utilizing scientific method as its approach.
Other teachers, sites, groups and paths are starting to do the same thing, more and more -- Jed McKenna being a good example, I feel, per this thread.
I just take "science" to mean: "nothing which is not experimentally verifiable and generally replicable, applies."
If you have a different definition, please let us know.
quote:
Sorry to be such a party pooper
Poop away!
This is a discussion forum; we discuss stuff.
You actually have me kind of curious; your post is kind of unexpected (to me, at least ... of course, to me, everything is unexpected ..... {in the "and I wouldn't/couldn't have it any other way" sense of the term, I mean}).
And so, if you care to comment further, I'm interested.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jul 16 2010 6:02:01 PM |
|
|
|
tonightsthenight
846 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 6:19:19 PM
|
Well Kirtanman, well played there. Im not sure i have the inclination to give you the full on response you deserve, my attention span isn't what it used to be.
I guess what i mean about the "science" aspect is this:
Enlightenment cannot be reduced to a science because the formless does not comply with form in the same way that the quantum world does not comply with the newtonian world.
Will we one day solve this riddle and reconcile all paradoxes? Yes. But not with science alone.
Enlightenment will be different for everyone. I did not get to enlightenment with the AYP set of practices, but it seems as if they work for some people. In any event, we can point the way for people (and in better ways now that we understand the ancient mysteries), but in the end they are on their own, because enlightenment is not simply a matter of following instructions.
It is precisely for this reason (that enlightenment cannot be reduced to a science), that it has been relayed as parables, as myth, as metaphor. It is gnosis, knowledge that transcends words or instructions or thought. It is only available through Grace.
Yes, we can organize, we can classify and we can provide insight. We can make the knowledge accessible. We can even lead a horse to water.
But in the end, its not science. Science says: a+b+c+d=enligthenment. thats not happening. It comes from a formless mystery, and expresses itself in the causal world.
PS After reading my post i wanted to add.
What i've decided is that enligthenment is the ultimate resolver of paradoxes. It is essentially living in the unreal world of forms from the real world of formlessness. what is that jesus quote? In the world not of the world. there is no science in the world of formlessness. |
Edited by - tonightsthenight on Jul 16 2010 7:49:36 PM |
|
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 6:48:10 PM
|
quote:
Poop away!
OH!...who has the siddhi now?
Nothing works better than a good poop joke! |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 9:23:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tonightsthenight
Well Kirtanman, well played there. Im not sure i have the inclination to give you the full on response you deserve, my attention span isn't what it used to be.
What are we talking about again??
"Enlightenment ...... short-term memory loss means you're halfway there ... or something."
quote:
I guess what i mean about the "science" aspect is this:
Enlightenment cannot be reduced to a science because the formless does not comply with form in the same way that the quantum world does not comply with the newtonian world.
Will we one day solve this riddle and reconcile all paradoxes? Yes. But not with science alone.
Enlightenment will be different for everyone.
The form-side of things, yes; the formlessness, no; the combo of the two-one (per the form aspects) ... yes, different.
quote:
I did not get to enlightenment with the AYP set of practices, but it seems as if they work for some people. In any event, we can point the way for people (and in better ways now that we understand the ancient mysteries), but in the end they are on their own, because enlightenment is not simply a matter of following instructions.
Very true.
Impossibility of staying unenlightened is probably the real key.
When you can't not ...... you do.
quote:
It is precisely for this reason (that enlightenment cannot be reduced to a science), that it has been relayed as parables, as myth, as metaphor. It is gnosis, knowledge that transcends words or instructions or thought. It is only available through Grace.
Yes, we can organize, we can classify and we can provide insight. We can make the knowledge accessible. We can even lead a horse to water.
But in the end, its not science. Science says: a+b+c+d=enligthenment. thats not happening. It comes from a formless mystery, and expresses itself in the causal world.
Agreed; a "science of sorts" might be a better way to have said it.
Why?
Because "science" means "objective", to most people.
Subjective science is different ... yet still amenable to general trends, patterns and models, in my experience.
The main reason for this is that, "at the end of the day" .... we're talking about awareness-consciousness, alone ... and there's an "is-ness" to it that does follow patterns, if not rules, per say ... and that are well-articulated in many traditions (including the ancient mysteries, from various parts of the world -- all of which outline an amazingly similar model).
quote:
PS After reading my post i wanted to add.
What i've decided is that enligthenment is the ultimate resolver of paradoxes. It is essentially living in the unreal world of forms from the real world of formlessness. what is that jesus quote? In the world not of the world. there is no science in the world of formlessness.
Good answer (funny: I typo'd "God answer", at first ....... "HM" ... ).
What makes form "unreal" though?
Answers vary, of course, but pragmatically-speaking: the unreality comes not from the form, but from limited interpretation and perception *about* the form.
In wholeness (aka enlightenment) it's all resolved.
Actually.
And yes, contrary to so many religions, opinions, systems, etc. .... there are an essentially infinite numbers of "paths" ... each one of them "custom" in structure, per each "person's" relaxation into wholeness, however they get t/here.
However, just as Newtonian Physics knows the (relative) direction of the quantum world ("smaller .... smaller .... ") ... so, from the relative dream-state of evaluation, cognition and language, we can say enlightenment is found in the direct of "whole-er .... whole-er .... like, *totally*" ).
For instance, Netwonian Mechanics is a relative model ... but the positing of how the relative pieces fits works well.
In wasn't until Quantum Mechanics that science was sure it had locked onto reality ... which is that there's no reality t/here ... ("Hey, an electron! Er ... I mean a possible electron! No, wait .. and oscillation! Er, I mean .... a probable oscillation .........possibly".)
Even science is an illustration/relative model .. albeit a fairly effective one.
Ditto anything I said with respect to science and enlightenment.
Enlightenment (Truth) is infinitely simple; it's everyone's ideas about it that are infinitely complex.
From enlightenment, there's the interestingly form-centric challenge of trying to talk about wholeness, using "fragmenters" (words) ... which is pretty much as fun as everything else (i.e fun ).
And so it goes ......
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
tonightsthenight
846 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 10:29:37 PM
|
Simple to understand. Difficult to explain
Enlightenment is a mystery.
In the end of course, form and formlessness, real and unreal... they're all the same thing.
But then again, i'm only enlightened for about 1/4 of the day. So maybe i'm not the best person to talk about it
One thing is for sure:
Being enlightened sure makes it easy to accept contemporary quantum physics.
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 18 2010 : 12:49:53 PM
|
Hi Tonightsthenight,
quote:
Originally posted by tonightsthenight
Simple to understand. Difficult to explain
Yes indeedy. Why this is so, however, is simplicity itself, explains a LOT, and can be a key to experiencing enlightenment ("Love it when that happens!!").
Form is focus on aspects of the whole (as opposed to enlightenment, or awareness as wholeness).
All form is division and/or divisive; mind, intellect, ego, language, description, definition ... you name it; they're all cutting instruments.
And so, discussing enlightenment is like (a LOT like) trying to pour the nectar of immortality into an ever-shifting tangle of inconsistently placed knives (i.e. "doesn't tend to work so well." ).
And so, we run around discussing enlightenment with things (words/ideas) that simply have nothing much to do with it, other than possibly as an orientation ("Wholeness & Infinite Freedom ---- This Way ---><----" ).
It's like the old Buddhist saying: "When a finger points at the moon, the wise person looks at the moon; the fool looks at the finger."
... and, I would add, tends to discuss how the finger should be bent, or how some dead guy from way back says how it must be bent, or whether a finger can really ever be said to be pointing at the moon at all .......... etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
And so, we find ourselves in the entertaining (for some of us), confusing (for others of us), potentially frustrating (ditto) little activity of attempting to convey wholeness with that which chops into pieces, and trying to understand it all with another cutting instrument (that tends to kind of cut what it wants, where and how it wants, very randomly, as most of us have noticed) ..... aka "reason, logic, rational use of mind".
"Let's take these pieces ...... and slice and dice them into wholeness!"
Hence a good majority of {quote} enlightened teachers {unquote] tending to end up emphasizing "come see for yourself".
That's not because anything other than seeing for ourselves matters less than seeing for ourselves.
It's because anything other than seeing for ourselves doesn't matter at all.
quote:
Enlightenment is a mystery.
"Per above" .... yes, indeedy x2 (aka infinity ) ... from the side of form and trying to understand (more form) with form (our ideas of self, and our ideas about other people's ideas about the concept of enlightenment, and so on).
In wholeness, however, it's more ..... obvious.
quote:
In the end of course, form and formlessness, real and unreal... they're all the same thing.
'Tis true --- and We Are All The Wholeness Now Appearing As That (aka This, aka All, aka Everything aka "and Stuff". )
quote:
But then again, i'm only enlightened for about 1/4 of the day.
Heck, "I'm" only enlightened now.
quote:
So maybe i'm not the best person to talk about it
Please just talk about it during the 1/4 of each day that you're enlightened ...... or we'll get all confused .... or build you an ashram and dedicate our lives to you, or something.
quote:
One thing is for sure:
Being enlightened sure makes it easy to accept contemporary quantum physics.
LOL! True that; it's all infinitely easier to "get" from the inside/wholeness.
|
|
|
|
tonightsthenight
846 Posts |
Posted - Jul 18 2010 : 4:09:22 PM
|
quote:
Hence a good majority of {quote} enlightened teachers {unquote] tending to end up emphasizing "come see for yourself".
That's not because anything other than seeing for ourselves matters less than seeing for ourselves.
It's because anything other than seeing for ourselves doesn't matter at all.
One thing i've wondered about...
the Buddha, Jesus, whoever, they all taught their disciples in metaphor.
but i keep thinking, one of these days, someone is going to come along who will be able to show people the way, that is lead them to the experience of enlightenment, through some medium. Maybe the voice, maybe music, i don't know, but i feel like its possible. As if one (or a group) would have the ability to direct the fire upon other people. Kind of an instant enlightenment, even if its only temporary. Because of course you have to walk your own path to get enlightenment, and its a loooooong journey.
so somehow, intuitively, i imagine this is possible, even though its never been done before. Do you think its possible? Or are we destined to spend the next 10,000 years waiting for everyone else to catch up? |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Jul 18 2010 : 4:29:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Hi Sparkle,
Thanks for your comments.
I'll do my best to clarify, per what you said about finding certain statements confusing.
quote:
Hi Kirtanman
quote:
Thanks for the explaination. I have to say I find statements like "I am not my body" to be confusing, and it's not just me
I understand that, and per your following comment, don't entirely disagree. The main point of my quoting Ramana Maharshi was more that I see myself as saying the same thing as many others have said, as opposed to really (intending to) delve into the specific statement, by making it (as in: it never occurred to me that Ramana's statement might be confusing).
I didn't ever find it confusing, in the sense that I knew what the words meant, but I guess I could also say that I found it confusing, in the sense that when I was first exposed to that teaching ("I am not the body"), I certainly had no sense of how that might be the case.
In experience, it's very clear, and I don't know that Buddhism (per your quoting the Dalai Lama, and your overall resonance with Buddhism, going by your past posts) teaches anything different that this ("I am not the body"), they just say it in a different way (i.e. all phenomenon are impermanent, and have no inherent reality -- i.e. the teaching of dependent origin of all phenonmenon), "everything causes everything else" as Adyashanti says, or "the gunas act upon the gunas" as the Bhagavad Gita says.
The important part of the statement isn't "body", per se; it could be mind, or soul or limited self ..... the primary point of any such statements is:
Bondage to suffering is based on identifying with aspects of ourselves, and taking them to be the whole of ourselves -- in a similar manner to thinking we are our left hand, and only our left hand.
It's not that we're exactly not our left hand --- but neither is it accurate to say we are our left hand. Probably more accurate to say our left hand is and aspect or part of a greater wholeness that is this that we are.
All I'm saying (in agreement with teachers like Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Adyashanti, Yogani {per the quotes from Lesson 413 I just posted in this thread}) is:
We're more than solely the body-mind; the idea the we are only the limited body-mind is the source of all bondage and suffering.
And so, maybe it would be more accurate to say "I am not my incorrect ideas about my physical body, and the thought-structures I think of as my mind; these things are occurrences within this that I am."
Which is what Ramana meant by Dehatma Buddhi --- "I am not the body" would be "Nirdehatma", or something similar; Dehatma Buddhi is the "I am the body idea" (effectively).
quote:
I think it can be quite mis-leading for some people and can result in some people escaping the body to sit in supposedly higher realms where in actual fact it could be said that the body is the door to the experiencing of awareness.
I agree; if someone thinks "I am not the body", and therefore, attempts to escape bodily things ... that's no closer to enlightenment than someone who only knows body and limited mind; that's just the other end of the duality spectrum.
And you said it well: body is the door to the experiencing of awareness; without embodiment in consciousness (i.e. the body-mind and all else at the experiential levels), awareness is aware, but there is no experience; experiencing requires form.
I've never intended to diminish the importance of form, nor have I implied form is unreal (form, in my experience, is consummately real), I'm simply saying that form is not what we are, any more than the physical body alone is what we are (all of us experience body within mind, as opposed to animals who have awareness, but {as far as we know} no awareness of awareness).
quote:
When you say it means not identifying with the body, sure I get this but to me it sounds completely different.
Well, that's what I mean: not identifying with the body (or limited mind).
As Nisargadatta said: "I experience the same things you do, just not in the same way."
(And I'm not saying my experience of body is different than yours; I don't know what yours is, these days. )
The point Nisargadatta was making, though, is that the experience of body is not what changes in enlightenment (or whatever we call it), it's that the false ideas about the experience are gone, and so the result is the natural experience of body-mind ... which includes not walking around with the artificial and incorrect idea of "I am my body-mind and that's all I am."
quote:
Maybe its just me or how I was brought up in Ireland, but I have never thought of myself as the body, so "I am the body idea") allows for the Self (Ramana's term) to be realized. as you say above, would never do it for me.
All teachings are indicators, I'd say; some work well for some of us, some others work well for others of us -- and howwell a given teaching works for each of us, when we need it, is all that matters (regarding the usefulness of a given teaching).
quote:
What might be more relevant would be "I am not a soul", as this was the one I was stuck on for so long, this is my upbringing.
I'd say that works just as well, at least in my experience.
The main point of any such teaching, again (I'd say) is:
We are not actually any of our limitation-based or limitation-oriented ideas.
Realizing that we're not these ideas helps us to relax into reality, where questions regarding what we are, or are not, simply no longer arise.
quote:
Not critizing you on this, just lookiing for clarification.
No worries; even if you were criticizing me, I don't think I'd respond any differently.
quote:
The term "adjacency" has been coined by Gregory Kramer, founder of Insight Dialogue to mean (my understanding) the interface between the absolute and the relative. One adjacent to another with the senses providing the doorway where this edge can be experienced.
I kind of get this, and think I agree, if "senses" includes consciousness.
I've recently said that there's only awareness-actuality (absolute-relative).
It could also be said awareness-consciousness-actuality ..... consciousness being a designation for the experiencing of the intermixing (both form and formlessness are experienced in, as, through consciousness).
As Einstein famously said:
"There's only emptiness; matter is just condensed emptiness."
To paraphrase Einstein, I'd say:
There's only awareness; matter is just condensed awareness.
quote:
To experience this one must be fully grounded in the body and not over to one side or the other of this edge. You mentioned "clarity" above, well this is where the clarity is, at this edge and with full embodiment.
I agree with this, completely.
As I've quoted Jed McKenna, as recently as today, in this thread:
quote:
"Enlightenment is not when you go there, enlightenment is when there comes here."
Or, as the Shiva Sutras say: "The body is the perceptible."
Awareness-Actuality; both are real, and both are One, and this One is wholeness; inseparable (non-dual means non-dual ).
All these teachings are just saying:
Emphasizing only form, and ignoring the inherently unbound and whole intrinsic nature of awareness, misses the point as well -- and can keep the form-only, process-only focus of unenlightenment focused on form .... and thus, focused on-in-as the delusion of unenlightenment.
Form isn't unreal, and form isn't "not part of us" -- form is part of a greater whole, and that greater whole (ever containing all form now) is what we each and all ever actually are.
For instance, I don't imagine that my day-to-day experience, of being a guy, doing stuff throughout the day, is markedly different than anyone else's, in terms of the mechanics of it -- even experiencing the unboundedness of unbound awareness only happens periodically.
Thoughts happen, feelings happen; they're just not longer misinterpreted to be as something that "I'm" doing, any more than itches are something "I'm" doing.
Thus, there's no evaluation; no conceptual overlay (because the one who had those conceptual overlays was seen to be an aggregate of confused and mistaken ideas, which dissolved when it was seen through ...... with a bit of help from a few years of daily practices .... .... and thus no suffering).
quote:
For me, at the moment, it seems to be the open heart interfacing with awareness that cuts the mustard.
In my experience, open heart is a natural aspect of awareness -- awareness no longer fragmented by concepts, that is.
quote:
For me the open heart may be the purest expression of the bodily felt experience and when it interfaces with awareness it can become something else also.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here, but again, I would say - Awareness is Wholeness ..... and Awareness is Wholeness *is* Heart - Wholeness .... it's why I tend to sign my posts with the phrase "Wholeheartedly".
For me, the phrases "Unbound Awareness" and "Whole Heart" are 100% synonymous.
Unbound Awareness means just that: Unbound.
From what? From misidentifying with form as the *totality* of reality, and being unconscious of the pure, undistorted awareness that is ever the experiencer of all of this; there is nothing else ..... the only difference is that some of us are experiencing unbound awareness consciously, and others are blocking conscious experience of unbound awareness with concepts of limitation.
quote:
So for me just limiting things to pure awareness without being prepared to feel all that the open heart brings, whether it be the nice feelings or the more painful ones is indeed limiting and would be living life at a distance from life.
I agree --- wholeheartedly.
Awareness is not limited; awareness is the opposite of limited.
quote:
Maybe this is not your experience, but this is where I am at for the moment and it is what I would consider the Dali Lama to be getting at
Cool ... and, "per above", it seems that we all agree -- my expression may just not have been optimally clear, before.
I hope this post helped to clarify.
quote:
All the best
Thank you; all the best to you, too.
quote:
ps. Would also be interested in knowing where you consider awareness to be centralised in the body, if at all. Although awareness is infinate and everwhere, is it experienced in the body from a particular place such as the gut or the solar plexus, or the crown or anywhere else?
Haven't checked in a while ....... "let's find out ....".
Hm. Interesting. I just yawned, and awareness was centered in my mouth and throat. Then I noticed Bhagavan Das singing, and it was centered between my ear and my computer speaker. My right nostril itches just slightly, so now it's centered there. All referring to the objects in awareness, and focus thereupon, of course.
As far as awareness itself ..... it's just everywhere, just like always.
That's the whole key, right there:
Chopping awareness, or anything else, up into conceptual pieces just isn't pertinent. To say "I am this physical body and its aggregate of thoughts, feelings, imagined memories, conditioning", etc. -- but "I am not my computer speakers, or the itch in my nostril" - or whatever else -- simply doesn't apply, in the slightest.
"Does not compute."
Awareness doesn't exist in a vacuum, and my apologies (to all reading) if I've seem to imply that my experience is that it does.
Not the case at all.
I'm just saying there's a shift from belief in the concepts which artificially divide and separate everything as being the totality of reality, to awareness of subjective experiencing as actually being the awareness itself, and no longer artificially identifying with form (including thoughts, feelings, sense of self, etc.)
Thoughts arise here, albeit a lot less and in a much less troubling manner than in the idea of the past being thought now -- they're just not disturbing.
As Jed McKenna points out (paraphrasing, here) - "the problem resides not in that which is disturbing, but in the thing disturbed."
The "thing disturbed" is the erroneous idea called the ego.
With that erroneous idea gone, there's just wholeness, and the harmony of living, within it now.
Hi Kirtanman
Thanks for the reply, I agree with most of it.
quote:
It could also be said awareness-consciousness-actuality ..... consciousness being a designation for the experiencing of the intermixing (both form and formlessness are experienced in, as, through consciousness).
No, I don't think consciousness is one of the senses, although mind is.
I agree fully with your description above on consciousness as being on the interface of pure awareness and the relative, thus making pure awareness conscious. Rather than being one of the sense doors I perceive it as being the doorway and as we stand ever still and ever moving in the doorway we experience conscous awareness.
Maybe splitting hairs here to make a point but as this description goes there is a difference between the door and the doorway. The doors of the senses when opened to awareness allows us to stand in the doorway and be conscious of awareness.
Then in this experiencing there is adjacency, which could be describe say like: when I speak I am aware of the voice in my body emanating out of awareness, but also aware of a sentance being formed and somehow making sense.
quote:
quote:
For me, at the moment, it seems to be the open heart interfacing with awareness that cuts the mustard.
In my experience, open heart is a natural aspect of awareness -- awareness no longer fragmented by concepts, that is.
quote:
For me the open heart may be the purest expression of the bodily felt experience and when it interfaces with awareness it can become something else also.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here, but again, I would say - Awareness is Wholeness ..... and Awareness is Wholeness *is* Heart - Wholeness .... it's why I tend to sign my posts with the phrase "Wholeheartedly".
Well going back to adjacency, it's a bit like experiencing the unbound nature of the heart in the experiencing of the universe and beyond as the expression of love, and also experiencing the heart as being centred in the chest of the body. Form and formless.
quote:
ps. Would also be interested in knowing where you consider awareness to be centralised in the body, if at all. Although awareness is infinate and everwhere, is it experienced in the body from a particular place such as the gut or the solar plexus, or the crown or anywhere else?
[/quote]
Haven't checked in a while ....... "let's find out ....".
Hm. Interesting. I just yawned, and awareness was centered in my mouth and throat. Then I noticed Bhagavan Das singing, and it was centered between my ear and my computer speaker. My right nostril itches just slightly, so now it's centered there. All referring to the objects in awareness, and focus thereupon, of course.
As far as awareness itself ..... it's just everywhere, just like always.[/quote]
That's not what I meant K-man
If one applies the same scenario as described with adjacency of the heart, then one could see that there may be a centre in the body which is the form centre of awareness. Intuitively it seems to be the Tan Tien to me but really I am in a position of not knowing as I haven't had an insight into this yet.
On this aspect of standing in the doorway of the sense doors, so to speak. There is the danger of walking through the door and residing in awareness and not staying in touch with the body through the senses. In this way we can bypass the body.
This is probably the main point I was trying to make in my original post and I suppose it's a challenge to all of us who might like to escape onto cloud nine, even occasionally
Wholeheartedly
Sparkle
PS, the text is doing funny things so please excuse the different sizes. |
Edited by - Sparkle on Jul 18 2010 4:36:07 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jul 18 2010 : 7:27:54 PM
|
New Jed McKenna Video Playlist - 11 Videos in all; enjoy.
Jed McKenna Video Playlist
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Jul 18 2010 7:29:21 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Jed McKenna
