AYP Public Forum
AYP Public Forum => Books, Web Sites, Audio, Video, etc. => Topic started by: Kirtanman on November 08, 2009, 01:56:43 PM
-
Meet "Wayne Wirs, Newly-Minted Enlightened Guy".
http://waynewirs.com/
His realization is clearly authentic; he's got some interesting stuff to say.
And he's a good and creative photographer.
And, he seems to be doing a good job of noting what it feels like to be a recent arrival on the mountain-top, before the newness, and the "way there" resolve themselves entirely.
[:)]
And so, "recommend reading", fer shure.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Wow....I was captivated by his experience and the description of his awakening....I read the whole site in one sitting....reading this put me in quite a "state" and I really feel the pull to meditate now....thank you for sharing this.
Love,
Carson[^]
-
Really intertesting site.Love the photos.The words and structure are full of meaning and presence here.Similar to yoganis teachings.
Love the photos.
The practice of "waking your self up" (http://waynewirs.com/2009/waking-yourself-up-part-iv-the-practice/) is absolutely amazing and powerful.Very,very interesting guy.
Thank you.
-
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Wow....I was captivated by his experience and the description of his awakening....I read the whole site in one sitting....reading this put me in quite a "state" and I really feel the pull to meditate now....thank you for sharing this.
Love,
Carson[^]
Hey Brother Carson,
I saw your other update; I'm very glad to hear the training is going well!
[:)]
And, I'm glad you found the site interesting and helpful .... I've only read a handful of Wayne's posts, including his dialog with Adyashanti, about his (Wayne's) enlightenment-related realization and insights ... and in general, it seemed "worth posting about" ... but I haven't spent a lot of time with the site yet.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi Kirtanman,
My initial reaction to the site you've pointed out was "There seems to be a newly emerging trend of 'enlightened' people marketing their teachings and books on the internet".
quote:
His realization is clearly authentic;
My question is, how do you know that he is clearly authentic?
I have read some buddhist teachings that say that you cannot tell if someone is enlightened unless you are enlightened yourself. They also say that a true arahant has no desire to publish or broadcast their realization, let alone sell a book about it over the internet... There is also the basic idea that enlightenment is permanent, it is not a flow between states, nor does it fluctuate, as others have said it does.
How can we distinguish between someone who is truly enlightened and someone who is perhaps a very intelligent spiritual marketer-person that only got a taste and is claiming to be enlightened? Or how do you know that the person even had a valid experience?
Or better yet, how can we determine that someone is enlightened when the experience of enlightenment that they describe as proof of enlightenment is very similar to psychic experiences by un-enlightened people? (The void, past lives, remote viewing..)
Please don't get me wrong. I appreciate learning about the link and will probably have to purchase the book now. And, I would hate to dismiss someone whom may be truly enlightened because of the fact that they are selling books over the internet.
But we are not all on that mountain top and sometimes the voice we hear from that mountain top isn't coming from the mountain top at all.. If we don't have the ears for it, we can't tell, and that voice could say anything they'd like. That is the problem with unverifiable thoughts, isn't it? Maybe that's what siddhis are for.. :)
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Kirtanman,
My initial reaction to the site you've pointed out was "There seems to be a newly emerging trend of 'enlightened' people marketing their teachings and books on the internet".
In the tenth century, they were saying the same thing about palm-leaf manuscripts [8D] (meaning: the Internet is just the communications vehicle of our time; writing and sharing teachings on the Internet is really no different than writing and sharing teachings in any other way).
In 2009, people write and sell books and ebooks.
In other parts of the world, and in other times, some realized/enlightened people may have been supported by monasteries, or devotees.
The economic and communication models and technology vary; they don't say anything about realization inherently ... though I'm very grateful to be alive now, when so much vast wisdom and helpful resources are available to every literate person with a computer and an internet connection (and I'm grateful for the literacy and the computer and the Internet connection, as well).
[:)]
quote:
His realization is clearly authentic;
quote:
My question is, how do you know that he is clearly authentic?
I recognize Wayne's expressions as authentic, based on my own (quote-unquote) experiencing of original awareness.
And that's the key; you can comment on the realization of another, when you experience a sufficient degree of realization // original awareness, in your experiencing.
Thinking mind doubts it can trust this.
Thinking mind is incorrect.
Intuition, confidence, liberation, original awareness ... all these are the original condition of awareness/consciousness.
They are essentially received (from the perspective of a more focused ... a more "individual" perspective, that is) ... when there is the opening to allowing the dropping of all ideas .... dropping the story of the me.
The receiving vessel (consciousness; human perspective) is (relatively/figuratively) like a chalice.
Thinking mind is like a sword .... dividing, describing, defining, delineating, deciding, distinguishing.
Imagine being ready to enjoy a nice warm cup of tea (or whatever [:)]) on a cold winter's day ..... and having only a sword to pour it into; doesn't work so well.
[8D]
Comparing new information with previously evaluated information ... and weighing the new information against the previous information, and evaluating the new information based on the conditioning of limited mind (aka the only "thing" in the entire Universe that *does* evaluate) .... doesn't work ... especially and specifically where truth and reality are concerned.
It's exactly like trying to pour a drink "into" a sword, instead of a chalice.
quote:
I have read some buddhist teachings that say that you cannot tell if someone is enlightened unless you are enlightened yourself.
"Hm."
[:)]
That's interesting.
[:)]
quote:
They also say that a true arahant has no desire to publish or broadcast their realization, let alone sell a book about it over the internet...
They're wrong.
[:)]
Or ... they're messing with you.
Just because a book is published on the Internet ... or off it ... doesn't mean anyone had a desire, necessarily; "books happen".
[:)]
quote:
There is also the basic idea that enlightenment is permanent, it is not a flow between states, nor does it fluctuate, as others have said it does.
Whose idea? These Buddhists, you mentioned? Why do you give them any particular authority? They sound a bit .... potentially confused .... at best.
And, if you read what they wrote ...... they published it somewhere, yes?
"Hm."
[:)]
quote:
How can we distinguish between someone who is truly enlightened and someone who is perhaps a very intelligent spiritual marketer-person that only got a taste and is claiming to be enlightened? Or how do you know that the person even had a valid experience?
You develop enough inner silence, and living from original awareness in your own experiencing, to recognize that same type of experiencing in another.
It's not all that "mystical", really; anyone with a fair amount of experience in anything (as in: doctors, lawyers, experienced engineers, experienced yogis and yoginis) ... come to recognize when someone else knows what they know, and/or lives what they live .... or if the other person is just "trying to sound" a certain way.
Wayne Wirs is clearly living from authentic realization.
He points out on his site that all his books were written prior to enlightenment.
I'm reading Fading Toward Enlightenment (http://waynewirs.com/f2e/) right now ... and it's a highly conscious work, describing Wayne's journey from "somewhat conscious to quite conscious" ... that many experienced meditators will likely recognize as similar to their own.
However ..... his recent posts are "since enlightenment" (he clearly points to which writings are which, on his site), and they demonstrate by the very nature of their expression that he experiences original awareness, and is living from that place, generally.
This is recognized/known by those of us with the same experience ... simply because we are living from this same original awareness ... and thinking mind has nothing .... nothing ..... to do with it.
And it's not that anyone else is actually living from this place "less" ... they're just not *experiencing* it; their experiencing is veiled by conceptual memories ... the "story of me".
[:)]
And that is, pretty much, the sum total of what can be said about it.
Keep practicing, and before too long ... you won't have to take my word for it .... or anyone's word for anything; you can know.
Everyone can.
Enlightenment isn't special, or exclusive ...... it's what's already here when we stop making up the unenlightenment.
[:)]
quote:
Or better yet, how can we determine that someone is enlightened when the experience of enlightenment that they describe as proof of enlightenment is very similar to psychic experiences by un-enlightened people? (The void, past lives, remote viewing..)
I don't know anyone, offhand, who describes enlightenment that way; it sounds like kind of a patchy description, at best ... and does sound more "psychic" than enlightened.
Read through Wayne's site; he talks about dropping the story of the idea self (I forget his wording, exactly) .... and his resulting experiences in coming to understand that regardless of any flux in any of the form (sense of self, sense of environment, etc.) appearing in awareness, identification rests in original awareness .... yet attention ... consciousness ... can span the spectrum from infinite to personal ... and back again ... and does .. arising from original awareness, and returning to it ..... every moment now.
Have you noticed?
[:)]
Always moving; ever still.
One minute a Buddha; the next a sentient being.
Sayings like this are attempts to point at awareness as it is:
The ground of being, of everything; infinite, eternal, One .... yet arising as ... everything ..... including the craziest idea of all ..... that somehow, it's *perceptions* of diversity .... are somehow *actual*.
You can check this for yourself:
Where is the exact line where the inside of your awareness stops, and the outside of your awareness starts?
[:)]
quote:
Please don't get me wrong. I appreciate learning about the link and will probably have to purchase the book now. And, I would hate to dismiss someone whom may be truly enlightened because of the fact that they are selling books over the internet.
Agreed (it would be unfortunate to let limited thinking mind call the shots).
Basically: don't listen to limited mind, if enlightenment is the intention; thinking mind doesn't know anything about enlightenment; it can't ... it's a cutting instrument; not the cup needed to catch the grace and light of amrita ... the nectar of immortality.
Follow your intuition .... "the guru is in you" ... any time you allow it to be, by dropping all pre-judgments ... prejudicial ideas ... prejudice.
[:)]
And please don't get me wrong, either:
Ultra-gullible, blind trust is not a wise way to go either; intuition is the driving force, anyway (decisions we "think" we make are ultimately arrived at intuitively .... thinking just *thinks* evaluation "reached" the conclusion) .. and so, the "middle way" of dropping ideas, and going with that which resonates for you ..... usually works out just fine (and in the long run, it always does).
[:)]
quote:
But we are not all on that mountain top and sometimes the voice we hear from that mountain top isn't coming from the mountain top at all.. If we don't have the ears for it, we can't tell, and that voice could say anything they'd like. That is the problem with unverifiable thoughts, isn't it? Maybe that's what siddhis are for.. :)
Yep.
"The Siddhi of the Results of Consistent Practices and Inquiry."
[:)]
[8D]
I hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi Kirtanman,
Thanks for posting the link to Wayne Wirs, I've really enjoyed reading his work and find him to be authentic about his experiences. It also illustrates well that spiritual transformation is an on-going life long process.[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
Perhaps "experiencing the natural state" is being confused with "enlightenment"..
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
They also say that a true arahant has no desire to publish or broadcast their realization, let alone sell a book about it over the internet...
They're wrong.
[:)]
Or ... they're messing with you.
Just because a book is published on the Internet ... or off it ... doesn't mean anyone had a desire, necessarily; "books happen".
[:)]
Here are the characteristics of an arahant, and unless I've misinterpreted, an arahant has no desires:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html
quote:
There is also the basic idea that enlightenment is permanent, it is not a flow between states, nor does it fluctuate, as others have said it does.
Whose idea? These Buddhists, you mentioned? Why do you give them any particular authority? They sound a bit .... potentially confused .... at best.
And, if you read what they wrote ...... they published it somewhere, yes?
"Hm."
[:)]
Another link:
"Enlightenment Is...
So to clear matters up, we're just going to spell it out in a very simple, clear, and lucid manner. Enlightenment is.. the PERMANENT dissolvement/cessation of ALL thoughts, thinking, concepts, and emotions of the ego/mind."
http://www.thetruthsoflife.com/truthaboutenlightenment.html
and this:
quote:
Satori (Îò Japanese satori; Chinese: w¨´ - from the verb, Satoru) is a Zen Buddhist term for enlightenment. The word literally means "to understand". It is sometimes loosely used interchangeably with Kensho, but Kensho refers to the first perception of the Buddha-Nature or True-Nature, sometimes referred to as " awakening". Kensho is not a permanant state of enlightenment, but rather a clear glimpse of the true nature of creation. Satori on the other hand refers to "deep" or lasting enlightenment.
Think of a baby when it first walks- after much effort, it stands upright, finds its balance and walks a few steps (Kensho), then falls. After continued effort the child will one day find that it is able to walk all the time (Satori).
Once the True-Nature has been seen. it is customary to use Satori when referring to the enlightenment of the Buddha and the Patriarchs, as their enlightenment was permanent.
The Zen Buddhist experience commonly recognizes enlightenment as a transitory thing in life, almost synonymous with the English term epiphany, and Satori is the realization of a state of epiphanic enlightenment. Because all things are transitory according to Zen philosophy, however, the transitory nature of Satori is not regarded as limiting in the way that a transitory epiphany would be in Western understandings of enlightenment.
The transitory nature of Satori, as opposed to the more enduring Nirvana that is sought in the Buddhist traditions of India, owes much to Taoist influences on Ch¨¢n Buddhism in China, from which Zen Buddhism of Japan evolved. Taoism is a mystical philosophy that emphasizes the purity of the moment, whereas the Hindu roots of Indian Buddhism lend a longer view toward escaping the Karmic prison of perpetual reincarnation in the material world. From Taoism's attention to the importance of the moment and Mahayana Buddhism's almost nihilistic denial of the validity of individual existence, Zen Buddhism with it's concept of the transitory state of Satori was born.
from this link:
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Satori/id/1896955
There are many other references to the permanency of enlightenment..
quote:
Follow your intuition .... "the guru is in you" ... any time you allow it to be, by dropping all pre-judgments ... prejudicial ideas ... prejudice.
[:)]
I can usually tune into a person and 'sense' power, energy, tingles or some kind higher spirituality. I'm not getting that from certain Western Spiritual Teachers or self-proclaimed enlightened people and it bothers me.
And finally:
quote:
"Or better yet, how can we determine that someone is enlightened when the experience of enlightenment that they describe as proof of enlightenment is very similar to psychic experiences by un-enlightened people? (The void, past lives, remote viewing..)"
I don't know anyone, offhand, who describes enlightenment that way; it sounds like kind of a patchy description, at best ... and does sound more "psychic" than enlightened.
Precisely. Here is a quote from a certain western spiritual teacher about their enlightenment:
quote:
I will try to explain what happened experientially. At the moment of awakening, it was as though I was completely outside who I thought I was. There was a vast, vast, vast emptiness. In that vast emptiness, in that infinite emptiness, there was the smallest, smallest, smallest point of light you could imagine. And that smallest point of light was a thought, just floating out there. And the thought was: "I." And when I turned and looked at the thought, all I had to do was become interested in it, in any way interested, and this little point of light would move closer and closer and closer. It was like moving close to a knothole in a fence -- when you get your eye right up to it, you don't see the fence anymore; you see what's on the other side.
So as this little point of "I" came closer, I started to perceive through this point called "me." And I found that in that point called "me" was the whole world. The whole world was contained within that "I," within that little point called "me." There wasn't really an I, but an emptiness that could go into and out of that point, in and out of it, and it's like the whole world could flicker on and off, and on and off, and on and off.
And then I noticed there were all sorts of other points, points, and I could enter each one of those points, and each one of those points was a different world, a different time, and I was a different person, a totally different manifestation in each one of those points. I could go into each one of them and see a totally different dream of self and a totally different world that was being dreamed as well.
Now, this to me sounds like someone went into the void (which many people here have been to) and experienced the 'I' thought, which, according to Nisargadatta, Ramana and others (including that quote from the Pali about arahants) have said is supposed to dissolve permanently. Then, the points of light are experienced as previous lives, which to me is like experiencing previous reincarnations. So, maybe you can understand my quandry, when I read about experiences like that, and having been to the void myself, and the last time I looked I could have sworn that I wasn't enlightened, then how could this person be enlightened?
Thanks for your time..
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Precisely. Here is a quote from a certain western spiritual teacher about their enlightenment:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will try to explain what happened experientially. At the moment of awakening, it was as though I was completely outside who I thought I was. There was a vast, vast, vast emptiness. In that vast emptiness, in that infinite emptiness, there was the smallest, smallest, smallest point of light you could imagine. And that smallest point of light was a thought, just floating out there. And the thought was: "I." And when I turned and looked at the thought, all I had to do was become interested in it, in any way interested, and this little point of light would move closer and closer and closer. It was like moving close to a knothole in a fence -- when you get your eye right up to it, you don't see the fence anymore; you see what's on the other side.
So as this little point of "I" came closer, I started to perceive through this point called "me." And I found that in that point called "me" was the whole world. The whole world was contained within that "I," within that little point called "me." There wasn't really an I, but an emptiness that could go into and out of that point, in and out of it, and it's like the whole world could flicker on and off, and on and off, and on and off.
And then I noticed there were all sorts of other points, points, and I could enter each one of those points, and each one of those points was a different world, a different time, and I was a different person, a totally different manifestation in each one of those points. I could go into each one of them and see a totally different dream of self and a totally different world that was being dreamed as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, this to me sounds like someone went into the void (which many people here have been to) and experienced the 'I' thought, which, according to Nisargadatta, Ramana and others (including that quote from the Pali about arahants) have said is supposed to dissolve permanently. Then, the points of light are experienced as previous lives, which to me is like experiencing previous reincarnations. So, maybe you can understand my quandry, when I read about experiences like that, and having been to the void myself, and the last time I looked I could have sworn that I wasn't enlightened, then how could this person be enlightened?
That's a quote from Adyashanti, as I'm sure you know. He isn't describing his enlightenment there, he is describing his awakening, as he says. In Adyashanti's language an awakening experience is different from enlightenment. He describes awakenings as temporary experiences and as glimpses of enlightenment (or enlightenment experiences).
Awakening experiences can take different forms, but they always have the experience of oneness in common. He talks about the gradual process by which awakenings become more and more frequent, and lasting, until oneness becomes one's constant state of being. I believe he said that it took 6 years for his initial awakening experiences to become fully integrated in his awareness as a lasting condition.
Personally I find Yogani's way of looking at enlightenment as a never-ending process to be very helpful. There are certain steps along the road and it can be useful to be aware of them. The rise of the witness state, ecstatic bliss, peace, divine love, samadhi, oneness (unity), grace, radiance, surrender, benediction etc.
But there is really no end to the degree to which the heart can become a channel of divine love flowing into the world. So what would it mean to say that something is permanent when it is always changing? The symptoms can become permanently established such as ecstasy and unity consciousness, but the process of transformation and illumination is always unfolding.
So with defining enlightenment, it is really a question of how we choose to cast the net. In this unfolding process when do we start using the word? In the main lessons Yogani talks about constant bliss and constant ecstasy as the 1st and second stages of enlightenment. Here in the forum he has talked about being permanently established in the witness state as another initial stage of enlightenment. So that could be as good a place as any to start. Awakenings (temporary experiences of unity consciousness) can happen either before or after any of these become established and are not necessarily related to them.
As Adyashanti said in the same book that you quoted from:
... people think, "When I spiritually awaken, when I have union with God, I will enter into a state of constant ecstasy". This is, of course, a deep misunderstanding of what awakening is. [Adya, The end of your world]
Letting go of the idea of enlightenment being an all-or-nothing affair also helps in letting go of the kind of, "who is and who is not enlightened?" thing. It becomes more a question of how much is someone experiencing (enjoying) the qualities of enlightenment and how much are they, out of love and compassion, sharing those qualities with others.
Christi
-
Whether he is enlightened or not (and who really cares...)...we can all enjoy his awesome photographs.
Thanks K-man!
-
From an email exchange I had with Wayne Wirs, after inviting him to the AYP Forum, and his review of this thread; Wayne Wirs wrote:
I think you understand why I hesitate to get involved with forums, it is very easy to get into the trap of arguing the inconsequential.
All enlightenment is, is realizing that there is no self.
Wayne Wirs was just a story. Wayne is a sound. Everything else said about enlightenment, whether an enlightened person has thoughts, or has desires, or shares or sells or lusts, all those are the same thing as whether Jesus walked on water. Just more stories--maybe true, maybe not--but just stories.
Ironically, those stories actually hinder and confuse the seeker (as they did Wayne Wirs (ego-Wayne)). This is a big reason that I am relating my experiences. Showing enlightenment as real, not as some ideal goal.
That enlightened people are not gods incarnate, but just normal people who dropped all the BS about themselves.
Feel free to post this if you want. Maybe it will help.
Wayne
http://WayneWirs.com
My Response:
Hi Wayne,
Yes, I do understand your hesitation.
For me, it's not an issue, simply per where I find myself, at the moment ... with no attachment or concern about specific dialog.
And, there's no sense of needing to discuss, yet discussing happens, with an easy sense of intending whatever I say, to help point toward where enlightenment can ultimately be found (in experience/knowing; not in the ideas of limited mind) ... with the specific words arising as the specific words arise.
Wayne Wrote:
Everything else said about enlightenment, whether an enlightened person has thoughts, or has desires, or shares or sells or lusts, all those are the same thing as whether Jesus walked on water. Just more stories--maybe true, maybe not--but just stories.
Yes; agreed 100%.
As you may have noticed, I simply kept drawing Tibetan Ice back to the fact that enlightenment is found in experience, and that my statement concerning your authentic realization was based in my recognition of it, per my own experience ... not anything I have read or heard.
My discussion with Tibetan Ice may have the appearance of talking about enlightenment ... but, as you may have seen with other discussions ... depending on the person you're talking with, the specific expression may have a normal conversation type of feel to it; in fact, the best ones usually do.
[:)]
Take Care,
Kirtanman
**
I hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Kirtanman :)
Perhaps "experiencing the natural state" is being confused with "enlightenment"..
Perhaps; it would be all too easy to do, considering they're both terms for the same thing.
[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Here are the characteristics of an arahant, and unless I've misinterpreted, an arahant has no desires:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html
Nothing anyone else says about enlightenment matters.
It can't be conveyed in words, and it can't be defined.
Even enlightened people disagree about exact definitions of enlightenment.
Words truly cannot define that which is inherently beyond words; limited mind cannot understand that which is beyond limited mind.
Enlightenment can only be known for yourself.
It is known by releasing attachment to limited mind ... to all conceptual thinking ... to the entire aggregate of conditioned conceptuality you think of as "you".
I'm saying all this, with the sole intention of benefiting anyone who may be reading ... by emphasizing that enlightenment can only be found in your own knowing; not anywhere else, and not via any conclusions the limited mind may draw.
I'm not saying this to debate; I'm saying this to hopefully help.
[:)]
Enlightenment is real; enlightenment is available, and everyone reading these words can live from enlightenment in their own experiential knowing.
All you have to do is to stop making up the unenlightenment by attaching to conceptual conditioning.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Another link:
"Enlightenment Is...
So to clear matters up, we're just going to spell it out in a very simple, clear, and lucid manner. Enlightenment is.. the PERMANENT dissolvement/cessation of ALL thoughts, thinking, concepts, and emotions of the ego/mind."
http://www.thetruthsoflife.com/truthaboutenlightenment.html
Do you know who wrote those words?
Some guy named Jarrett, who started a web site.
His words don't carry any more authority than the words you or I may write here.
Nor do Wayne's words, nor Adyashanti's, nor Yogani's ... nor anyone's.
Words don't carry authority; they are signposts.
Limited mind says: "If new information doesn't conform to my prejudicial ideas, it's wrong."
Limited mind can't know right from wrong; it's a projection of an erroneous concept, itself.
Enlightenment is what is reading and understanding these words right now ...... conditioned, limited concept-driven mind has just deluded a subset of your full awareness into thinking otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
There are many other references to the permanency of enlightenment..
That's fine; enlightenment is permanent; it's a lot more permanent than anything else anyone has ever experienced, known, or thought themselves to be.
That doesn't mean that a conscious spectrum of subjectivity is not experienced; a conscious spectrum of subjectivity is experienced ... and enlightenment is permanent.
It's a bit tough for it *not* to be permanent; enlightenment is who and what we all actually are, now .,... original awareness, prior to space, time, and all other concepts of partiality and limitation.
The only thing missing in enlightenment is artificial delineation ... "Maya".
When artificial delineation ... conceptual conditioning ... is absent, the result is:
Enlightenment, liberation, awareness of original and inherent fulfillment.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Follow your intuition .... "the guru is in you" ... any time you allow it to be, by dropping all pre-judgments ... prejudicial ideas ... prejudice.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I can usually tune into a person and 'sense' power, energy, tingles or some kind higher spirituality. I'm not getting that from certain Western Spiritual Teachers or self-proclaimed enlightened people and it bothers me.
Those are all perceptions and conclusions of limited mind; limited mind can always convince you that something it right or wrong; that discrimination is it's job; it's a cutting instrument; it has nothing to do with enlightenment.
Again: enlightenment is not something that can be known, discerned, figured out or determined.
Enlightenment is not an object in awareness; enlightenment is awareness; enlightenment is who you are.
Christi answered your question on the Adyashanti quote very well, I thought; I have nothing to add to that (thanks, Christi!).
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
So, maybe you can understand my quandry, when I read about experiences like that, and having been to the void myself, and the last time I looked I could have sworn that I wasn't enlightened, then how could this person be enlightened?
As Adyashanti himself says:
Enlightenment is not an experience.
Enlightenment is living from your own original awareness.
Enlightenment is living from, living as, original awareness, unoccluded by the "modifications of mind" as the Yoga Sutras refers to it; unagitated by the layers of conceptual conditioning that we all think of as "me" ... until we don't think of "me" (or as "me"), any longer.
Enlightenment is ever already here; drop the veil of conceptual conditioning, and know for yourself.
It'll cost you everything you've ever known, or believed, or thought, or thought yourself to be.
And you'll call it a bargain.
The best you've ever had.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
“What a lucky man I am to have lost the fear to live.”
~Wayne Wirs
-
Hi Christi,
Thank you for your response. :)
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
...
That's a quote from Adyashanti, as I'm sure you know. He isn't describing his enlightenment there, he is describing his awakening, as he says. In Adyashanti's language an awakening experience is different from enlightenment. He describes awakenings as temporary experiences and as glimpses of enlightenment (or enlightenment experiences).
Awakening experiences can take different forms, but they always have the experience of oneness in common. He talks about the gradual process by which awakenings become more and more frequent, and lasting, until oneness becomes one's constant state of being. I believe he said that it took 6 years for his initial awakening experiences to become fully integrated in his awareness as a lasting condition.
Yes, but directly before the previous quote, it does say this:
quote:
Tami Simon: During what you call your "final awakening," at the age of thirty-two, you have mentioned in other interviews that part of that experience included seeing your past lives. I realize that this is not something you like to talk about.
Adyashanti: Yes, we know each other well enough that you know that, but it looks like you are going to move forward anyway -- good for you.
Tami Simon: The legend, as you know, is that the Buddha, sitting under the Bodhi Tree, saw his past lives flash before him as part of his awakening. I'd like to know what you saw.
It appears to me that within this context, they (Adyashanti and his publisher) are using the term 'awakening' for 'enlightenment'. They are saying that Buddha was 'awakened' and then within that same breath, posing the same question to Adyashanti, implying the same quality of state. I think this is misleading. Further, there is the mention of 'final awakening', that Adyashanti called it that.
That same excerpt came from this link:
http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6058/language/en-US/Tami-Simon-Interviews-Adyashanti.aspx
And then there is this:
quote:
Adyashanti: Of course, of course. This idea that enlightenment is about people having beatific, silly little smiles on their faces all the time is simply an illusion. I like to counter that with imagining that we are in a modern-day church, and somebody comes in the back door and blows his lid like Jesus did, kicking over the money changers, yelling at the top of his lungs, "How dare you defile my father's house!" I mean, Jesus was throwing a holy fit, right? He was upset. He wasn't faking it. He was literally upset. And he was expressing his upset.
So can one be upset from a nondivided state? Of course, you can. Every emotion is available to us. To be awake doesn't mean we have fewer emotions available to us. Emotion is just a way that existence functions through us. There is a divided form of anger and there is an undivided form of anger.
Here, Adyashanti has taken an example of Jesus' behaviour and used that to determine that "Every emotion is available to an awakened being". His argument appeals to reason on a very basic level, yet, no person is mentally capable of realizing what Jesus is, so how can we know that Jesus was truly experiencing emotion? Further, who is to say that an enlightened being cannot demonstrate behaviour that may be interepreted as 'emotional' without the corresponding emotions?
Adya is assuming that because Jesus' behavior looked like emotional behaviour then it must have been caused by emotion hence Jesus was acting emotionally. He uses this example to conclude that an awakened being experiences emotions. To me, and from what I've read, an enlightened being is not affected by negative emotions such as anger.
This really makes me doubt Adyshanti's statement that there is an 'undivided form of anger'. How can it be if an enlightened person is not bound by anything?
quote:
As Adyashanti said in the same book that you quoted from:
... people think, "When I spiritually awaken, when I have union with God, I will enter into a state of constant ecstasy". This is, of course, a deep misunderstanding of what awakening is. [Adya, The end of your world]
That is what Adyashanti said. However, the Pali says this (and Buddha was all about the end of suffering, and isn't the end of suffering called happiness or ecstasy or the like?):
quote:
Nibbana is described as the highest happiness, the supreme state of bliss. 7 Those who have attained Nibbana live in utter bliss, free from hatred and mental illness amongst those who are hateful and mentally ill. 8 Sukha in Paali denotes both happiness and pleasure. In English happiness denotes more a sense of mental ease while pleasure denotes physical well being. The Paali word sukha extends to both these aspects and it is certain (as will be shown below) that mental and physical bliss is experienced by one who has attained Nibbana.
It is no wonder people believe that they will enter "a state of constant ecstasy". It says so in the Pali. It says so in many Buddhist teachings and religions. Seems to me that Adyashanti is trying to redefine truth. Is he saying that the Pali is misleading people? Adyashanti is a pioneer, bravely forging ahead where no man has gone before in the realm of spiritual interpretation of the theory of oneness or non-duality. Am I wrong?
I really don't know what happened but after studying Adyashanti for a few months, buying his books, downloads, meditations, I sort of flip-flopped and started viewing his teachings as a mish-mash of the 200 spiritual books that he previously read. Perhaps I started swinging to the opposite side of the spectrum when I noticed that Eckhart Tolle had coined the term "End of your world" before the book by the same name came out by Adyashanti..
Christi, you said:
quote:
Letting go of the idea of enlightenment being an all-or-nothing affair also helps in letting go of the kind of, "who is and who is not enlightened?" thing.
Detach, detach.. :)
I understand that journey to enlightenment can be a gradual process or it can come in a flash. However, I still believe that enlightenment has a state of permanency to it. And, like Buddha suggested, don't take anything for granted. It is my right to examine, descriminate and question what I am inclined to.
Perhaps my query should be directed at Advaita (non-duality) as I seem to have great concerns with it's interpretation of enlightenment, or perhaps the western version of Advaita.
I was reading Patanjali's Yoga Sutras by Chip Hartranft for the fifth time today and I am now wondering if the next quote from that book is a refutation of the Advaita philosophy:
quote:
When the ultimate level of non-reaction has been reached, pure awareness can clearly see itself as independent from the fundamental qualities of nature.
...
Isvara is a distinct, incorruptible form of pure awareness, utterly independent of cause and effect, and lacking any store of latent impressions. Its independence makes this awareness an incomparable source of omniscience. Existing beyond time, Isvara was also the ideal of the ancients.
...
With realization, the appearance of indivisibility vanishes, revealing that awareness is free and untouched by phenomena. The apparent indivisibility of seeing and the seen can be eradicated by cultivating uninterrupted discrimination between awareness and what it regards.
To me, "independent from the fundamental qualities of nature." means duality, or non-oneness, they are separate, distinct.
If I am interpreting this correctly, oneness is the 'apparent indivisibility of seeing and the seen'. Either that or oneness/non-duality theory is incorrectly refering to that 'infinite awarness which encompasses all' as the all. Perhaps we all share the same universal Isvara, but that Isvara seems to be a distinct entity from the world of form.
Thank you, Christi for your thoughtful comments and giving me more motive to further delve into this topic.
:)
TI
Dear God, when I die, please let me go quietly, sleeping like my grandfather and not like the screaming passengers in his car. :)
-
quote:
Originally posted by miguel
Really intertesting site.Love the photos.The words and structure are full of meaning and presence here.Similar to yoganis teachings.
Love the photos.
The practice of "waking your self up" (http://waynewirs.com/2009/waking-yourself-up-part-iv-the-practice/) is absolutely amazing and powerful.Very,very interesting guy.
Thank you.
Hi Wayne, Miguel, Anthem, Machart, Christi, Carson, TI & All,
Just wanted to say thanks to all for the awesome dialog; this is "gettin' right down to it".
Enlightenment isn't "out there" somewhere; it can't be.
It's here; right here; it's what we all are, now; it's what's reading these words.
Words congeal, words melt; words congeal again.
Awareness is.
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Adya is assuming that because Jesus' behavior looked like emotional behaviour then it must have been caused by emotion hence Jesus was acting emotionally. He uses this example to conclude that an awakened being experiences emotions. To me, and from what I've read, an enlightened being is not affected by negative emotions such as anger.
Adya is giving an example, in a conversation, which fits the points he's making.
He's also said (laughingly):
"Hell, I don't even remember what I say; I don't see why anyone else should!"
And ... he's not assuming or concluding anything.
If there's one thing I know of Adya, it's this:
He's speaking solely from experience.
There's no such thing as a "negative" emotion; that's a concept.
The difference is: in enlightenment, there's no one to be "affected" by it; anger is a reaction of the body-mind; it has nothing to do with enlightenment; with the awareness we each and all are, now.
In trying to understand enlightenment, you're taking the real and making it into a concept.
Know for yourself; you're well on your way.
As Wayne pointed out, and as I can confirm:
It's with attempts at conceptual understanding that we prevent enlightenment.
quote:
This really makes me doubt Adyshanti's statement that there is an 'undivided form of anger'. How can it be if an enlightened person is not bound by anything?
Because anger is only binding as a concept, to the conceptual me.
As a living emotion, it's just an emotion; just energy moving. The body-mind reacts with anger at times ... more in some body-minds than others; so what?
What does that have to do with enlightenment?
Enlightenment is the living experience of living unbound .... that's what it *is*; knowing yourself as the inherent freedom of original awareness ....... original awareness.
quote:
Perhaps I started swinging to the opposite side of the spectrum when I noticed that Eckhart Tolle had coined the term "End of your world" before the book by the same name came out by Adyashanti..
That comment above, and your comments on Advaita, etc. .... sound like ........ thinking.
Maybe try not doing that, and see what happens.
[:)]
I'll vouch for Adya; he's enlightened. So's Tolle. If you care to, watch some of their videos on YouTube and let us know of anything unenlightened expressions you run across. I attended weekly satsang with Adya, sometimes multiple times per week, for four years, prior to moving from California; and he's simply an enlightened teacher.
I fully realize (with pun fully intended) that this is exactly the type of statement that makes conceptually limited mind very uncomfortable ... which is why I'm making it; enlightenment is too important to hold back from offering any pointers which may help someone open to its reality ... which is very much in the spirit of this thread, per Wayne's statement in my email dialog with him, that he wants to show that enlightenment is attainable; "me, too" (quote unquote).
[:)]
There are a few authentic and good ones out there, and Adyashanti is definitely both; he and AYP have been two of the "cornerstone supports" in my own awakening, realization and enlightenment.
And so, maybe rather than siccing limited mind on Adya's potential flaws ... maybe open your heart a little, and take in the essence of his teachings; and just see how you feel if your mind isn't seeking out the "wrongness" the entire time you're listening.
I hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi TI,
quote:
It appears to me that within this context, they (Adyashanti and his publisher) are using the term 'awakening' for 'enlightenment'.
Yes, Adyashanti does sometimes interchange the terms awakening and enlightenment, as he did in his first book "Emptiness Dancing". Awakening experiences are experiences of the enlightened state... enlightenment is the condition of being awake to That which we really are. We awaken to enlightenment, or more accurately, enlightenment awakens to itself. So I, personally, can forgive Adyashanti for confusing the two terms. Where does awakening end and enlightenment begin? Where does ecstasy end and bliss begin? Where does grace end and benediction begin? How can the realization of eternity happen in a moment of time? At what point does human language fail completely? [:)]
quote:
They are saying that Buddha was 'awakened' and then within that same breath, posing the same question to Adyashanti, implying the same quality of state. I think this is misleading.
I wouldn’t like to judge. [;)]
quote:
It is no wonder people believe that they will enter "a state of constant ecstasy". It says so in the Pali. It says so in many Buddhist teachings and religions. Seems to me that Adyashanti is trying to redefine truth. Is he saying that the Pali is misleading people?
Yes, the Pali texts refer to bliss of the body and the bliss of the mind. I believe that the bliss of the body is what we (here at AYP) would call ecstasy, and the bliss of the mind is what we would call bliss. As Yogani says, with enlightenment, ecstasy and bliss become permanently established. But Adyashanti is talking about awakening and an experience of awakening can happen before ecstasy (the bliss of the body) has even been felt.
During an awakening experience, the normal identification with egoic consciousness falls away and the Self is experienced as it really is. It is an experience of the oneness of all things. The mind becomes stilled and silent and many insights arise. It is incredibly blissful and peaceful. I had my first awakening when I was about 20 years old and it completely blew me away (literally, not metaphorically). It was about 15 years before I was to experience what ecstasy was, and about 3 more years before I experienced whole body ecstasy. It is only recently that whole body ecstasy has become an ongoing aspect of my reality.
If Adyashanti said that a permanent state of ecstasy is never a part of the enlightenment process, then I would simply say that he obviously hasn't reached that stage yet, and maybe when he does, he'll change his mind. But I have never heard him say that, so it's a bit hypothetical.
One thing we are beginning to see which I believe could be clouding the issue around enlightenment, is a number of people basically saying: “I’m enlightened, and my experience is like this, so all enlightened people must experience this too”. I think this is based on the “top of the mountain” idea of enlightenment. It is the idea that you have either arrived, or you haven’t, and if you have then you know everything there is to know about enlightenment. Obviously, as the process of transformation expands and deepens beyond the initial stages of awakening, this idea begins to erode.
quote:
Detach, detach.. :)
I understand that journey to enlightenment can be a gradual process or it can come in a flash. However, I still believe that enlightenment has a state of permanency to it. And, like Buddha suggested, don't take anything for granted. It is my right to examine, descriminate and question what I am inclined to.
Absolutely! Everyone has that right, and it is good to question and investigate. Personally I have found that some aspects of the process of enlightenment come in a flash, and others come gradually. It's a big journey with many layers and depths. Certainly whole body ecstasy could not come in a flash; it would be too much for the body to bear. Awakening experiences can happen in a flash, but the integration of those experiences into the being takes time. The process of the merging of ecstasy and bliss also takes a long time for the body to adjust to the new levels of energy involved and the implications of the process.
Yogani talks about it here:
"As for what is next once inner silence and ecstatic conductivity are coming up, it is a long drawn-out joining of these two, played out as much in our daily activity as in our practices. This gives rise to the "child" of the union, as it were, called "jivan mukti," or "christ consciousness." This is the end game of yoga, and corresponds to what I call "outpouring divine love." It means we increasingly see the world as our own self and act accordingly -- "doing unto others" in service. That, in turn, accelerates our advancement into unity, which is another word for jivan mukti or christ consciousness."
From: http://www.aypsite.com/plus/274.html
Christi
-
Hi Christi, TI & All,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
If Adyashanti said that a permanent state of ecstasy is never a part of the enlightenment process, then I would simply say that he obviously hasn't reached that stage yet, and maybe when he does, he'll change his mind. But I have never heard him say that, so it's a bit hypothetical.
One of the keys here, is that words, and concepts about the meaning of words, can only perform a very minuscule function, in terms of describing enlightenment (or whatever it might be called).
As Paramahamsa Nithyananda says, enlightenment is "ultimate but not final".
Someone once asked Adya about this very thing, during a live satsang, and he clarified that enlightenment is not an experience ... enlightenment is knowing your true nature (original unaugmented awareness, as opposed to any of the forms in conceptual thought we think of as part of our identity).
The person then asked a follow-up question about whether or not opening and expansion continued, and Adya's response was one of the most enthusiastic I've ever seen ... and he said (I'm paraphrasing just a little; this was a few years ago) ...
"It's like being a kid on Christmas morning .... it's like knowing there's this great surprise around the corner ... and not knowing what ... but just knowing it's going to be great!"
The person then asked if "it ever stops?"
Adya managed to seem moved, grateful, excited and full of a sense of the profound all at the same time, and said:
"It never stops!"
That's basically how it is in my experiencing, now, too.
However, the above words can make it sound a bit more dramatic than it is; it feels very normal, and "just the way it is" .... yet beyond wonderful, at the same time.
Part of the confusion comes from terminology combined with experiencing ... and exactly where the "line" is drawn, primarily because words and limited mind have to draw a line somewhere; that's what they do.
And that's the very essence of Maya ... which comes from the Sanskrit root Maa ... to measure.
Being lost in Maya; stuck on the wheel of Samsara ... is simply confusing delineation with that which is actual; in reality, there are no artificial lines.
At a certain point, this is mentally understood and experienced ... a full experience of the oneness of the field of awareness is often called realization.
Then, there's the mental knowing that the one field of awareness is one's true identity, based on intermittent experiences of this awareness from subjective view ... from the vantage point/experiencing of this whole, inclusive awareness.
This is amazing at first, then normalizes ... most meditators (this was my experience) get used to this in meditation (it's known as nirvikalpa samadhi; complete absorption, in yogic systems) ... but for some time, have difficulty maintaining this awareness outside of meditation ... because focus on the various internal and external forms (quote unquote) of life .... thoughts, feelings, other people, circumstances, etc. ... is an inherent aspect of the body-mind ... and because identification of the part of awareness attached to the concept of me is so very strong; we were each and all literally programmed with it, from the time we could understand words and concepts.
Then, the experiencing expands, so that this sense of being the oneness of awareness persists in daily life (call nirvikalpa sahaja samadhi by Ramana Maharshi) ... and again ... intermittently; it's known that "I am all this; all this is my expansion (the states of Sadasiva and Isvara, in Kashmir Shavism; unbound subjectivity and unbound objectivity, respectively).
But there's still, every so often, a sense of being pulled in to identification with form or limited sense of self, in some way.
Then "one fine day" .... though, it seems, some of us notice it, and some of us don't ... it just kind of "morphs" into knowing, absolutely and irrevocably, that I am the awareness; I am not limited by the form in any way .... very literally .... I am the field of awareness ... and its content ... but not any of its specific content.
Specific content vacillates from moment to moment ... including sense of self; how could we *be* any of that; it defies even logic (yet extends infinitely beyond it).
And that is what I would call enlightenment: when the regular, default sense of who I am literally shifts ... and "stays shifted" from some aspect of limited form .... to the space of awareness, itself.
It's easy to verify, if there's enough inner silence.
Notice the physical.
Then, take a step back ... notice the subtly energetic. An easy way to do this: visually note your body, your hands ... and then close your eyes ... and notice that you still have a mental picture of your body, your hands ..... this is the gross (physical/waking) and the subtle (energetic-mental{including thinking}/dreaming) of yogic writings.
Then, the next level (very subtle, in certain Buddhist schools; deep sleep in the yogic model) is deep sleep; if you experience samadhi, you may be able to access it consciously; it's basically the *sense* you have of your mental body, but without the *form* of it ... that's about as close as words can come to describing it.
Behind/Before that is the Turiya state/Nirvikalpa Samadhi .... pure, formless awareness .... the true original experiencer of every moment of your life, now.
Utterly contentless, utterly without limit; the complete space of awareness ... *always*, *ever* the actual, true experiencer .... the light of awareness behind the mind.
It's impossible to be "not this" ... it's only possible not to consciously know we are this ... because of the identification of part of awareness with form.
When identification with form relaxes enough .... identity literally shifts.
I cannot believe in the limited me thought any longer, and it basically doesn't arise.
Reactions in the body-mind arise, sure .... they go with the body-mind; they have nothing to do with me.
The body-mind can change, grow old and die; whatever; I AM.
Twenty million years from now, this will all be a dim memory, and yet - I AM.
Literally; as these words are written, I AM.
I yet, I appear to be a middle-aged man, with LIVE cranked, sinus issues, and gnoshing on a cheeseburger and a Pepsi as I write this .... but these things have nothing to do with who and what I AM.
Nor do the specifics of your life have anything to do with "you am" either.
[:)]
I had some sense of "maybe being enlightened" when identificiation was "shifting" from limited form to unlimited awareness .... and the knowing became complete when the shifting became complete.
I (knowing there's no "I" here, actually ... figure of speech [:)]) am comfortable calling this enlightenment ... because it's the point at which liberation is complete.
However, if someone else wants to say "enlightened" in someplace else along the spectrum of consciousness-awareness .... that's fine, too.
I'm just joining in Wayne's sense (as I've been doing for a while now, as some of you may have noticed) .... saying: enlightenment is real; you can have it; it's what we all *are*.
*HOWEVER* (Important However) ... as Adyashanti says:
"If someone tells you they're enlightened, they're not."
I agree.
[:)]
There's no "I" in the sense that that term is usually defined, *to* be enlightened; that "I" is gone ... yet, what remains is both I and Non-I ... and beyond both; the awareness I AM is living, unbound.
Unenlightenment is simply identifying wrongly with certain aspects of conceptual thinking and self definition.
Let that go .... and enlightenment is always already here; it's just the full field of awareness ... and experientially living *from* that full field ... instead of from the conditioned aggregate of thoughts and feelings thought of as "me".
However, enlightenment literally cannot be described; what it actually is, is beyond the levels of consciousness where words, concepts and discursive thinking occur.
And yet .... there's never been anything else; not really.
Words get in the way; concepts get in the way; literally.
Release all concepts, and what remains is enlightenment .... the enlightenment you are; you don't become enlightened ...... you are enlightenment; all this is enlightenment ..... it's just what's here when the tyranny of the dream of conceptual subjectivity has dissolved.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
One thing we are beginning to see which I believe could be clouding the issue around enlightenment, is a number of people basically saying: “I’m enlightened, and my experience is like this, so all enlightened people must experience this too”. I think this is based on the “top of the mountain” idea of enlightenment. It is the idea that you have either arrived, or you haven’t, and if you have then you know everything there is to know about enlightenment. Obviously, as the process of transformation expands and deepens beyond the initial stages of awakening, this idea begins to erode.
Very much agreed; I tried to clarify this, above .... but it's tough to do, with words.
There's no real "arrival" ... there's just a shifting of conscious identity from form to awareness.
That formless awareness is what is living every life; unenlightenment is just having a certain amount of attention "frozen forward" in objectivity, and the conceptual prison of the dream of limited self.
Enlightenment isn't attained; it's more melted into; relaxed into; opened into.
And enlightenment is not an experience.
It's a literal shift of identity; at times, I still feel like a "regular person" in terms of where attention and sense of experiencing may focus, during a given moment, now ... but I can no longer believe, at all, that I actually *am* the limited forms (physical, emotional, energetic, emotional) of the body-mind that is physically typing these words.
As many of us do, I spent a bit of time (a yearish; maybe closer to twoish) ... trying to get to the place of the complete shift (which is why it took so long .... [8D]).
And then one day, I noticed the shift had happened .... and the awareness of self literally cannot become identified with limitation any longer.
And so, on the one hand; enlightenment is just a word; words are no longer primary; actuality is primary.
On the other hand, conveying that enlightenment is attainable ... may be helpful is freeing some who are reading this from the conceptual prison of "but I read"; enlightenment is not found there; enlightenment is found here, the moment all ideas are released.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan Ice
I understand that journey to enlightenment can be a gradual process or it can come in a flash. However, I still believe that enlightenment has a state of permanency to it. And, like Buddha suggested, don't take anything for granted. It is my right to examine, descriminate and question what I am inclined to.
Originally posted by Christi
Absolutely! Everyone has that right, and it is good to question and investigate. Personally I have found that some aspects of the process of enlightenment come in a flash, and others come gradually. It's a big journey with many layers and depths. Certainly whole body ecstasy could not come in a flash; it would be too much for the body to bear. Awakening experiences can happen in a flash, but the integration of those experiences into the being takes time. The process of the merging of ecstasy and bliss also takes a long time for the body to adjust to the new levels of energy involved and the implications of the process.
Yogani talks about it here:
"As for what is next once inner silence and ecstatic conductivity are coming up, it is a long drawn-out joining of these two, played out as much in our daily activity as in our practices. This gives rise to the "child" of the union, as it were, called "jivan mukti," or "christ consciousness." This is the end game of yoga, and corresponds to what I call "outpouring divine love." It means we increasingly see the world as our own self and act accordingly -- "doing unto others" in service. That, in turn, accelerates our advancement into unity, which is another word for jivan mukti or christ consciousness."
From: http://www.aypsite.com/plus/274.html
Christi
Yes; again, agreed.
The knowing who we actually are, is permanent once it happens, and is experienced a bit differently, by everyone (some suddenly, some gradually, some noticing after-the-fact, such as I did; I'd heard of this, but couldn't imagine how it could happen; it can. [:)])
All manner of experiences that limited mind might compare to what it's read, and say "Ah ha! Not enlightened yet!" can occur.
Before the identity shift, limited mind can have influence.
After identity shift, they can't; it's literally known-experienced that they don't have anything to do with this that I AM, just as an itch doesn't identify limited self .... unless it's a really major one, of course!! [:D]
Even outpouring of divine love is just what original awareness willingly knows-does once the knowing of oneness is complete; once identity truly resides there (and even partially, proportionately, prior to that shifting).
Then ... one is born .... ONE is born, now; Adya mentions in Emptiness Dancing that he left Annie (now Mukti) his wife, a note, saying "Today is my birthday!" on the day of his "final awakening".
The words make it sound like such a big deal.
It's normal.
A lot more normal than the ever-agitated dream of conceptual me could dream of being.
And it's real.
Enlightenment is real.
Enlightenment is all that's real.
And everyone is invited.
You are invited.
Come on home, now.
[:)]
For ONE, it's where you've alway been; it's who you've always been.
And, for One, it beats the living crap out of the dream of conceptual partiality (aka Hell).
Wake Up!
You're going to anyway.
And not only is it nothing like you imagine.
It's nothing like you can imagine.
It's freedom.
We're all freedom.
Freedom beyond imagination; living unbound; loving unbound; humanity unbound ... expanding into ever-more-complete, ever-more-joyous, creative awareness creating the peace and joy of the beauty of this.
Ya wanna?
Come on IN, the Divine Is FINE!!
[:D]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Here's a conversation that Wayne Wirs had with Adyashanti, which may shed some light on all this:
[:)]
**
Blog Post by Wayne Wirs - Confirmation With Adyashanti
October 16, 2009
Last week, I went to see Adyashanti who was holding satsangs (talks) in Portland. At the end, during the concluding question and answer portion, I raised my hand and, when called on, approached the microphone…
Social Interactions
I thanked him for devoting his life to helping others even though it must bore the hell out of him (enlightened or not, I’m still a wise ass).
There was a kind of nervous laughter as the crowd suspected that I might be a heckler, but then I clarified it by saying, “To most people here, what you say is absolutely fascinating, but to you, it’s just everyday life. Do you get bored talking about this all the time?”
He smiled and replied something along these lines, “No.” (pause). “Sometimes I do, but now I only teach when I want to. I don’t usually talk about this stuff in my day-to-day life, especially with my family.”
Confirmation: I feel the same way. Even though enlightenment is a relatively new perspective for me, I’m still “Wayne” –there’s just no ego. I don’t think about enlightenment all the time, nor do I go around preaching it on street corners. To my friends, family and anyone else who knew ego-Wayne, I’ll still appear and act pretty much the same–it’s just that my perspective (and values) have changed since I was ego-Wayne.
Conditioned Reactions
I then asked Adyashanti if he still experienced conditioned reactions, specifically, self-consciousness. Then I realized I had to give him a little background–which was not my intention originally–so I plowed on, “This is going to sound cocky as hell, but there it is. I woke up about two months ago, and I’m still getting used to it. What surprises me most, are my reactions. For example, here we are, in front of about 300 people, and, though I feel no ’self’, I’m surprised I still feel a twinge of self-consciousness. Is this just a conditioned reaction? Does it go away?”
He said something along the lines that yes, these are just conditioned reactions, but he doesn’t feel them nearly as much as he used to. He said that his teacher once told him that it takes anywhere from five to 15 years after enlightenment for the mind to settle down.
Confirmation: This gave me an immediate sense of relief, as I have been troubled as to why my body still reacts in a very self-centered way (sudden actions that arise due to circumstances: frustration while driving, reaction to an unzipped fly, reactions to people giving me those curious looks (maybe due to the above mentioned fly), etc.). My mind and body just haven’t settled into it yet.
Three Levels of Consciousness
Then the big one, the one that had been confusing me the most. I asked, “My ‘center’ of awareness seems to shift around a lot. Sometimes I feel this powerful sense of Love and Light pouring through me,” –here he smiled and nodded knowingly. “Other times, I am the Witness, and even other times, I am just ‘here,’ walking, or talking, or thinking–Pure Consciousness. Is this your experience or does that settle down too?”
He replied along the lines, “Yes, there is a flowing,” (referring to himself), “sometimes Love pouring out, sometimes Stillness. This is my experience also. I’m always hesitant to talk about these things though, as I don’t want to give my students something else to cling to.”
Confirmation: This was nice to know. The “flowing” is a wonderful feeling. Additionally, hearing that this is his experience also, lends support to something that has been nagging at me ever since my awakening. I’ll talk about this later though, when the truth of it has “settled” into my brain (understanding comes much easier to me now if I just “relax into the thought” rather than trying to force/figure out a problem).
I thanked him, sat down, and then he closed out the satsang. The next day, I attended his six-hour intensive–though I didn’t have any other questions. It was pleasant, and deep, and funny. Of the big three, Adyashanti is definitely the most down-to-earth.
I left him a copy of Fading Toward Enlightenment, talked to a few people who had approached me about my experiences, and then headed back to my camp.
**
Source: http://waynewirs.com/2009/confirmation-with-adyashanti/
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
It is no wonder people believe that they will enter "a state of constant ecstasy". It says so in the Pali. It says so in many Buddhist teachings and religions. Seems to me that Adyashanti is trying to redefine truth. Is he saying that the Pali is misleading people? Adyashanti is a pioneer, bravely forging ahead where no man has gone before in the realm of spiritual interpretation of the theory of oneness or non-duality. Am I wrong?
Adyashanti is just an enlightened guy, from our time and our culture ... mine; anyway ... he's a year younger than I am, and we went to "sister" high schools; he's as "my culture" as one can get .... maybe that's why none of his statements bother me, even a little; Silicon Valley, California is a fairly culturally independent place, even without considering enlightenment.
And, as Adya says at the beginning of Emptiness Dancing, when he woke up ... he woke up out of Zen, too (he had been a practicing Zen Buddhist for close to fifteen years).
He's not trying to redefine anything; he's just trying to indicate enlightenment, as best he can, speaking from his own experiencing in his own words.
Saying something different than sacred writings isn't "redefining truth" ..... truth isn't found in sacred writings; truth is found in experiencing; in experiential knowing; only there .... not in words; not ever.
Sacred writings are like a map to New York City .... even the dot on the map that reads "New York City" .... is *not* New York City; New York City is a loud, congested place with lots of traffic, tall buildings, honking horns, potholes, and many thousands of aggressive drivers who seem to be irritated specifically at you, because they can be.
I know the difference between the dot on the map, and actual New York City, because I've been there.
You may not have been ... but you can go ... and anyone who's had at least a significant experience of enlightenment .... or something "right around" what most people would call it ...... are just trying to help you see/know how to get there (aka here), too.
It's the most important information you'll ever been given ... in this life ... or in any number of them.
The Buddha (Gautama Siddhartha) is a concept.
He may have been an historical person (I don't know; many people seem to think so, though ... and their guess is as good as my non-guess) ... but he's a concept ... a mental form .... now, to/for any of us; maybe somewhat deeper for some ... but if we go "all the way" deep, just as with Jesus, or any other ascended master ... we come to that place where we are the same ... original awareness, unmarred (or "unmaya'd" [8D]) by any conceptual distortions.
Point Being: Adyashanti is alive now; Eckhart Tolle is alive now; Yogani is alive now; I'm alive now; some of the rest of us at the forum are alive now (I don't want to "out" [:D] anyone, who doesn't care to say anything about themselves; even Yogani says "no special claims here" ... and I'd say the same; there are no special claims ... just a certain transition of identity and knowingness that I'd been doing a disservice, if I wasn't willing to publicly acknowledge it.)
And it's not like there's "enlightened-dar" {like radar, only regarding enlightenment} per se .... the mind wants that kind of security, but enlightenment cannot be known in the realm of objectivity; it can only be known in your own experience.
As far as you who can trust: all enlightened teachers who are actually enlightened ... say something very, very close to the same thing. If they say enlightenment is anything *other* than identification with awareness and not form ... they may not be enlightened (even the Buddha, when asked if he was a man or a god, replied simply: "I am awake").
[:)]
I've spent hundreds of hour with Adyashanti; I've talked with him on a few occasions, again just recently. I have a friend in Calfornia who used to be part of Adya's weekly poker game (yes, poker game); I have another friend who ran into Adya and his wife Mukti (formerly Annie) at the Whole Foods grocery store; I've volunteered at his office; Adya and Mukti are the nicest, most normal people you'll ever meet ... and they're as fully enlightened as anyone who has ever walked the planet. And infinitely more enlightened than the concepts of limited mind ... even if those concepts of limited mind are limited mind's conceptualizations of Buddha or Jesus or whoever.
I'm not saying this to defend them; they don't need defense.
I'm inviting you to know what they know; what I know; what others here know by listening to what we're all saying; by looking to where we're all pointing.
When a sage points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger; the wise man, at the moon.
Getting caught up in limited mind's ideas about what somebody said, and comparing it to what somebody else said ... is giving yourself the finger .... when you could have the moon, and sun, and the stars and all that is.
[:)]
quote:
If I am interpreting this correctly, oneness is the 'apparent indivisibility of seeing and the seen'. Either that or oneness/non-duality theory is incorrectly refering to that 'infinite awarness which encompasses all' as the all. Perhaps we all share the same universal Isvara, but that Isvara seems to be a distinct entity from the world of form.
Interpretation obscures enlightenment.
And TI ... I'm not trying to give you a hard time, here; I'm really trying to help ... you're just circling (it seems) in trying to catch hold to what somebody said.
I recognize this, because I did it for a long time.
Even authoritative sources aren't really authoritative; they don't have the truth ... they can only point to the truth.
YOU'RE the truth; I'm just trying to help you see how to read the map, so you can know this for yourself.
Mental comparison and evaluation won't do it.
I enjoy some of the maps and models of consciousness, because I get how they work based on my own experience.
Prior to that time, I read literally hundreds of books, trying to figure out who is right.
Information is part of objectivity; reality is subjective .... experientially knowing oneself as the oneness of awareness.
From the view of "fully inclusive" ... I Am the full field of awareness, including its content (called Sadashiva in Kashmir Shaivism).
From the view of wholeness of awareness, yet noticing distinction between whole subjectivity and the totality of the content of awareness ... I Am awareness, independent of form).
It's not either-or ... it's both-and.
I can say this with confidence, because I can drop into either aspect at will; it's not a big deal ... normally I don't even think about it (quite possibly because both Sadashiva and Ishvara are on *this* side of thought ... in undivided, thoughtless awareness).
If you'd like to verify all this in your own experiencing, keep practicing, don't fight and don't doubt ..... just relax.
I hope this helps.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
PS- Some people seem like they want to argue; you (TI) don't seem this way ... you seem like you really want to know. And so, I'm spending this time, not to refute your statements ... but to genuinely try to help you know what you seem to be seeking to know. And so, please know: I fully respect everything you have to say ... and I fully know that no one realizes enlightenment while being stuck in what "somebody said" .... enlightenment doesn't work that way.
Enlightenment is letting go of attachment to form.
[:)]
-
Be what you are not who you are.
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
One thing we are beginning to see which I believe could be clouding the issue around enlightenment, is a number of people basically saying: “I’m enlightened, and my experience is like this, so all enlightened people must experience this too”. I think this is based on the “top of the mountain” idea of enlightenment. It is the idea that you have either arrived, or you haven’t, and if you have then you know everything there is to know about enlightenment. Obviously, as the process of transformation expands and deepens beyond the initial stages of awakening, this idea begins to erode.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very much agreed; I tried to clarify this, above .... but it's tough to do, with words.
It's not that hard to do with words. [:)] You just say that enlightenment is an ever deepening and ever expanding process. See... easy.
The danger of not doing so, is that it could lead someone to what Yogani calls "The illusion of having arrived".
Someone could think: "O.K. this is it, I've reached the goal" and give up their spiritual practices. Then they could be hanging out saying: "ecstasy has nothing to do with enlightenment" or "divine love has nothing to do with enlightenment", simply because they stopped their practices at the witness stage: identification of the self with pure awareness (the formless) but still separate from form.
Here is an interesting quote from Yogani on the illusion of having arrived:
"Enlightenment, the direct realization of who we are, is unassuming and does not proclaim itself, except by compassionate assistance offered for the benefit of everyone. Conversely, where there is the assumption of attainment or of having arrived, actions can be distorted accordingly, leading to a rigid teaching, proselytizing, sectarianism, and a shift in focus from spiritual practices to the one who has supposedly arrived. It is a pitfall of the mind commonly found on either the side of the teacher, the student, or both.
When consciousness is identified with the mind, there will be a great need to proclaim victory over the forces of ignorance. This breeds more ignorance, of course. There can be no enlightenment proclaimed on the level of the mind. The functioning of the mind can only be seen as a symptom of the illumination which comes from within, or the lack of it. We may conclude that an inner flow is occurring or not, but we can never proclaim with accuracy that we have arrived, for that is beyond the province of the mind.
By definition, both the cause and the destination of true self-inquiry are beyond the mind, in the abiding inner witness, which never assumes or proclaims anything. It just is.
When there is some proclaiming going on, it is wise to ask, “Who is proclaiming?” and then let go in stillness." [Yogani, Self inquiry, dawn of the witness]
Christi
-
p.s.
quote:
Kirtanman wrote:
And so, on the one hand; enlightenment is just a word; words are no longer primary; actuality is primary.
On the other hand, conveying that enlightenment is attainable ... may be helpful is freeing some who are reading this from the conceptual prison of "but I read"; enlightenment is not found there; enlightenment is found here, the moment all ideas are released.
I am sure that conveying that enlightenment is attainable is helpful to many, but continually saying: "All you need to do is relax, and notice that you have always been enlightened all along, is, in my opinion, a more questionable persuit.
It reminds me of another passage from Yogani's Self Inquiry book:
"The premise is that if one engages in this kind of thinking for long enough, then eventually the letting go that results will lead to realization, and the cognition of That which is beyond the play occurring in time and space, which is presumed to have no reality whatsoever. This “realization” can be instant. So it is said. There is an inconsistency in this approach. Not for everyone, but for a large percentage of the population. The problem is that for those who are yet to cultivate abiding inner silence (the witness) this kind of self-inquiry will be largely intellectual. That which is being sought in letting go is a thought object in the mind also. So it is thoughts about thoughts. The mind playing with the mind. It can go on for a very long time....
It is like asking a bird who is yet to grow wings to jump off the top of a building. The bird with fully developed and functioning wings will keep saying to the one with undeveloped wings, “Come on, you can do it. Just jump. Don’t worry about the wings.” Does this make any sense? The wings have to come first. Then we can fly." [p23]
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
p.s.
quote:
Kirtanman wrote:
And so, on the one hand; enlightenment is just a word; words are no longer primary; actuality is primary.
On the other hand, conveying that enlightenment is attainable ... may be helpful is freeing some who are reading this from the conceptual prison of "but I read"; enlightenment is not found there; enlightenment is found here, the moment all ideas are released.
I am sure that conveying that enlightenment is attainable is helpful to many, but continually saying: "All you need to do is relax, and notice that you have always been enlightened all along, is, in my opinion, a more questionable persuit.
It reminds me of another passage from Yogani's Self Inquiry book:
"The premise is that if one engages in this kind of thinking for long enough, then eventually the letting go that results will lead to realization, and the cognition of That which is beyond the play occurring in time and space, which is presumed to have no reality whatsoever. This “realization” can be instant. So it is said. There is an inconsistency in this approach. Not for everyone, but for a large percentage of the population. The problem is that for those who are yet to cultivate abiding inner silence (the witness) this kind of self-inquiry will be largely intellectual. That which is being sought in letting go is a thought object in the mind also. So it is thoughts about thoughts. The mind playing with the mind. It can go on for a very long time....
It is like asking a bird who is yet to grow wings to jump off the top of a building. The bird with fully developed and functioning wings will keep saying to the one with undeveloped wings, “Come on, you can do it. Just jump. Don’t worry about the wings.” Does this make any sense? The wings have to come first. Then we can fly." [p23]
Christi
Hi Christi,
I agree, completely and enthusiastically, with Yogani's quote, above.
Originally Written By Yogani
"That which is being sought in letting go is a thought object in the mind also. So it is thoughts about thoughts. The mind playing with the mind. It can go on for a very long time...."
"Thoughts about thoughts" is exactly what I, like Yogani, am counseling against.
The main point of my emphasis that enlightenment is always already here is that, well, enlightenment is always already here .... in reality.
However, seekers are not living in and from reality, they are living from conceptual conditioning, either almost wholly, or very fractionally ... but still a little bit in prison is still a little bit in prison.
The context of my comment was:
There's no "I'm there and you're not" in reality; nothing less than the full field of awareness is ever actually here for anyone.
The wholeness of awareness is what everyone's experience actually arises from; it can't be somewhere else.
However, conceptual conditioning has been reinforced in the psyche and in the physical form .... the body-mind ... in the looping of reactive conditioning, recreating more memory and imagination from memory and imagination .... which in turn creates long-term memory of conceptual conditioning ... and even more pertinent ..... specific, ever-vacillating individual conceptual conditioning ... which is literally stored in the body at the protein level.
That's where yoga and meditation come in.
Yes, the wholeness of awareness is always already here.
Most of us, however, require quite a bit of practicing and utter dedication to consistent practicing .... of meditation and yoga .... in order *to* (literally) re-program and re-create our neurobiology, so that we *can* experience the enlightenment and liberation of original awareness that's always already here, consciously and automatically .... effortlessly; that's when the new birth happens ... and that's when conscious creating from the outpouring of divine love (which is experienced much differently than mind imagines; the one that use to be here, at least! [:)] It's much more subtle, much more normal-seeming than imagined ... yet that term still fully qualifies, and is fully celebrated).
The fact is: unenlightenment is re-projected every moment, via identification of a small part of awareness with the conditioned reactions of the body-mind.
However, just letting go and mentally know that .... while it helps .... probably won't end the dream .... it's always worth a shot though, any moment it can be sincerely mustered.
At the same time, though, patience is very much advised; for most of us, it's a process, apparently, which gets to the point where you "just do it" ... just practice; just dedicate your entire life to enlightenment ... while, at the same time, letting life be normal.
Enlightenment can't be turbocharged; it's a very organic process, and experienced quite individually, until individuality dissolves ... but even then, the body-mind and its experiences have their own ekarasa ... their own flavor of oneness.
As you've likely seen me write quite a few times:
I fully credit the practices of AYP with facilitating enlightenment, here.
Fully.
AYP Works.
All the way home.
Am I saying "AYP is absolutely necessary for you"? (Anyone.)
Not at all; that can't be known; everyone awakens somewhat uniquely.
However, yogic practices, inquiry and meditation have all been the most powerfully replicable methods to enlightenment, all over the world, and for many thousands of years.
AYP, via its custom combination of pranayama and mantric meditation, combined with inquiry and other AYP techniques, and most importantly, its open-source, open-architecture nature, combined with its living community (this would be *us* [:)]) .... seems to effectively be "Yoga 2.0" ... or, one form of it, at least.
And so, I'm not suggesting that anyone do anything other than continue daily practices; I still practice daily; there's just no goal in doing so; it's something the body-mind does.
My sense of it is:
If those of us who are free, who are home, extend a hand, in the form of sincere words and the liberated awareness writing them ... that liberated awareness is all that's actually here ... and describe in detail how this works ..... it's not that the result will be instant enlightenment .... though it might be .... but it could conceivably shorten someone's total sadhana by months, if not years, decades or even lifetimes.
How many decades-long yogic practitioners, who are not enlightened, are out there.
It doesn't have to be that way.
Enlightenment is just living from the reality of how consciousness actually works; that's all.
Originally Written By Yogani
"That which is being sought in letting go is a thought object in the mind also. So it is thoughts about thoughts. The mind playing with the mind. It can go on for a very long time...."
The entire purpose of my recent posts in this thread is to help the dynamic of the "mind playing with the mind" as Yogani says .... go on for a much shorter time; to help eradicate the confusion that keeps people "practicing in circles" for much longer than needed.
AYP is about refining the technology of yoga; distilling it, making it more efficient, extending it .... that's what we're all about, here.
My comments on the true nature of awareness and enlightenment is simply one small contribution to this overall process.
I hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
By definition, both the cause and the destination of true self-inquiry are beyond the mind, in the abiding inner witness, which never assumes or proclaims anything. It just is.
When there is some proclaiming going on, it is wise to ask, “Who is proclaiming?” and then let go in stillness." [Yogani, Self inquiry, dawn of the witness][/blue]
Christi
Thanks for being rigorous with this, Christi; good stuff is coming out of this dialog.
Yes, of course:
It is wise to ask "who is proclaiming"?
If it's not original awareness itself, it's usually one of two situations:
*An ego that wants to be seen as enlightened (wants the recognition that only ego cares about, which obviously can never have anything to do with enlightenment; enlightenment literally can't conceive of the separation which could project that desire.)
*An ego who wants to be enlightened (finished with the journey; able to say "this is it", and so on).
If it is original awareness itself, it's not really proclaiming; more natural expression.
That's what Adyashanti does, what Wayne is doing, what Yogani is doing, what others of us are doing.
Ego ... illusion .... can be very tricky ..... just as it can produce claims of "premature enlightenment" ... it can produce hesitation to say anything about enlightenment; just as it can produce a false sense of attainment .... it can produce a false sense of non-attainment.
If enlightened awareness somehow arises via a body-mind that uses the words "I" and "enlightened" in the same sentence, or seems to be conveying that sense, in a way that another body-mind might take exception to .... the beauty and power of what is being said can be obscured by the clouds of limited mind.
AYP has always been an attainment-averse community ("expression-wise", I mean); that's good .... none of this is about attainment.
Yet, at the same time .... it can potentially be quite helpful for some of us, other than Yogani, who have now realized the fullness of the process, to simply acknowledge realization of the fullness of the process ... and as Yogani has said many times, as Adyashanti has said, and as I am saying:
And so, it simply continues.
quote:
Originally written by Yogani
Both the cause and the destination of true self-inquiry are beyond the mind, in the abiding inner witness, which never assumes or proclaims anything. It just is.
Which is the essential point of what I'm saying in this thread: the stillness beyond the mind is always, already here. At a certain point in practicing and its results, conscious identification shifts from the dream of being the body-mind to knowing and experiencing life as original awareness, living unbound.
To keep silent about this would be to succumb to ego from the other side ... something that is simply can't happen, now.
Extending the invitation is important as well; it's part of what the stillness does, now.
That's part of the shift as well ..... from reaching for the extended hand ... to being the extending hand.
It's not an ego thing; it's not a mind thing; it's beyond and before both; it's just how original awareness operates.
Original awareness can't not know its completion any more than the dream of partiality can not think it is partial.
Would we be better off if original awareness appearing has Yogani had not said anything about the possibilities of yoga? Or if original awareness appearing as Adyashanti had not expressed and confirmed liberation and enlightenment, as Adyashanti?
I have a friend in California who used to attend satsang with Adyashanti when he literally would have eight or ten people attend regularly.
Well, about three years back ... I was spewing "Adya" right, left and center ... and finally my friend spoke up and said something like:
"You speak so highly of Adyashanti; why? I just don't see it ...."
I gave him my reasons (this was back when I had them .... [:)]), along with my experiencing of Adya's consciousness, and the truth of what he expressed.
"Long story short" ... it came out that my friend, who was also our same age (Adya's and mine) ... felt like a peer of Adya's ... and when Adya began to express realization .... my friend felt uncomfortable.
And, in my conversation with him, he said something that I deeply, deeply respected ... he said:
"You know what it is? I'm jealous of him. I used to feel like we were basically even, and now he's saying he's 'there' ... and I want to be there, too! I guess, that's pretty egoic, huh?"
My response was along the lines of:
"Well, I wouldn't actually *say* that, but technically speaking, well, I guess so .... but ... that's actually awesome to realize; now, you can just let that go, and see how it goes ..."
He was a big Tolle fan, and I mentioned liking both Adya and Tolle because they're so similar in teachings, outlook and consciousness, and my friend said:
"Yeah, they actually are .... I guess I really need to give Adya another look ..."
Did he? Did it work out well?
I actually don't know; I moved from California shortly after that, and lost touch with him.
And please note: I'm not saying you (Christi) or anyone else, is doing this, or thinking this .... my point isn't with how this relates to what's going on here, but rather that any time enlightenment is realized, that "a prophet is without honor in his own country" ... and I'm talking about it from (in this case) Adya's standpoint.
I heard this story from my friend; I've heard similar ones from Adya .... sometimes it can seem that one is proclaiming ... when One is actually inviting.
I would seem reasonable to say that of all the body-minds that enlightenment has come to seem to be emanating through .... that it's likely that not a single one of them has been universally accepted by limited-mind as enlightened ... because limited-mind can only presume some semblance of individuality, somehow saying "I am enlightened" ... but if those words are used, and enlightenment is genuine, it's not limited mind using those words; it's original awareness.
And it is like that; there's really no "I" in the usual sense to even be enlightened; enlightenment is the cessation of that idea.
The difference is:
If it's "I AM ... and you're not" .... that's proclaiming.
If it's "I AM .... we all AM ... and I AM writing is inviting I AM reading to know, too" ..... that/this is inviting.
[:)]
If there's any exception to take with what I'm saying here, it might be with phrasing ... but not with intent; an invitation is being extended, that's all.
The awareness actually reading these words and the awareness writing these words is the same awareness.
Which is all I'm actually saying, here.
[:)]
It's part of the way it's all happening, that's all; there's no decision ... and no one to make it.
Someone asked Adya in a satsang why he teaches, and he responded:
"I have no idea; I realize that you may have a hard time understanding that, but it's true; I have no idea".
"Like that."
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Christi and Kirtanman :)
Thank you very much for this discussion. I am still here. I'm carefully preparing my next set of questions and dealing with a strange phenomenon.
Towards the end of reading your posts last night, a void opened up in the back of my head level with my eyes and a strange formation of light presented itself. It looks like the total accumulation of all galaxies in a sort of a squashed triangular shape surrounded by an immense void. It is a constant vision, that is, it's not going away. I see it as I go through my daily activities, even as I sit here now. Then, last night (this morning), I woke up at 5:00 am wide awake. My usual waking time is 7:00 am. So I lay in bed and tried to go back to sleep. I just lay there in bed, kind of watching that strange light galaxy conglomeration for a while and tried to fall back asleep. After I while, I realized my body was sleeping but I wasn't. It was a surprise. My alarm went off and my body "woke up".
Anyway, like I have indicated, I'm still working on my next set of questions, but in the meantime, I found this next quote by Ken Wilber that I thought I'd present because I'm wondering if this is the AYP witnessing state or something else..
quote:
So Who Are You?
by Ken Wilber
The witnessing of awareness can persist through waking, dreaming and deep sleep.
The Witness is fully available in any state, including your own present state of awareness right now.
So I'm going to talk you into this state, or try to, using what are known in Buddhism as "pointing out instructions."
I am not going to try to get you into a different state of consciousness, or an altered state of consciousness, or a non-ordinary state.
I am going to simply point out something that is already occurring in your own present, ordinary, natural state.
So let's start by just being aware of the world around us.
Look out there at the sky, and just relax your mind; let your mind and the sky mingle.
Notice the clouds floating by. Notice that this takes no effort on your part.
Your present awareness, in which these clouds are floating, is very simple, very easy, effortless, spontaneous.
You simply notice that there is an effortless awareness of the clouds.
The same is true of those trees, and those birds, and those rocks.
You simply and effortlessly witness them.
Look now at the sensations in your own body.
You can be aware of whatever bodily feelings are present-perhaps pressure where you are sitting, perhaps warmth in your tummy, maybe tightness in your neck.
But even if these feelings are tight and tense, you can easily be aware of them.
These feelings arise in your present awareness, and that awareness is very simple, easy, effortless, spontaneous.
You simply and effortlessly witness them.
Look at the thoughts arising in your mind.
You might notice various images, symbols, concepts, desires, hopes and fears, all spontaneously arising in your awareness.
They arise, stay a bit, and pass.
These thoughts and feelings arise in your present awareness, and that awareness is very simple, effortless, spontaneous.
You simply and effortlessly witness them.
So notice: you can see the clouds float by because you are not those clouds-you are the witness of those clouds.
You can feel bodily feelings because you are not those feelings-you are the witness of those feelings.
You can see thoughts float by because you are not those thoughts-you are the witness of those thoughts.
Spontaneously and naturally, these things all arise, on their own, in your present, effortless awareness.
So who are you?
You are not objects out there, you are not feelings, you are not thoughts-you are effortlessly aware of all those, so you are not those.
Who or what are you?
Say it this way to yourself: I have feelings, but I am not those feelings.
Who am I?
I have thoughts, but I am not those thoughts.
Who am I?
I have desires, but I am not those desires.
Who am I?
So you push back into the source of your own awareness.
You push back into the Witness, and you rest in the Witness.
I am not objects, not feelings, not desires, not thoughts.
But then people usually make a big mistake.
They think that if they rest in the Witness, they are going to see something or feel something-something really neat and special.
But you won't see anything.
If you see something, that is just another object-another feeling, another thought, another sensation, another image.
But those are all objects; those are what you are not.
No, as you rest in the Witness-realizing, I am not objects, I am not feelings, I am not thoughts-all you will notice is a sense of freedom, a sense of liberation, a sense of release-release from the terrible constriction of identifying with these puny little finite objects, your little body and little mind and little ego, all of which are objects that can be seen, and thus are not the true Seer, the real Self, the pure Witness, which is what you really are.
So you won't see anything in particular.
Whatever is arising is fine.
Clouds float by in the sky, feelings float by in the body, thoughts float by in the mind-and you can effortlessly witness all of them.
They all spontaneously arise in your own present, easy, effortless awareness.
And this witnessing awareness is not itself anything specific you can see.
It is just a vast, background sense of freedom-or pure emptiness-and in that pure emptiness, which you are, the entire manifest world arises.
You are that freedom, openness, emptiness-and not any itty bitty thing that arises in it.
Resting in that empty, free, easy, effortless witnessing, notice that the clouds are arising in the vast space of your awareness.
The clouds are arising within you-so much so, you can taste the clouds, you are one with the clouds.
It is as if they are on this side of your skin, they are so close.
The sky and your awareness have become one, and all things in the sky are floating effortlessly through your own awareness.
You can kiss the sun, swallow the mountain, they are that close.
Zen says "Swallow the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp," and that's the easiest thing in the world, when inside and outside are no longer two, when subject and object are nondual, when the looker and looked at are One Taste.
You see?
:)
TI
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Thanks for being rigorous with this, Christi; good stuff is coming out of this dialog.
You know me K-man, always rigorous! [:)] There is too much at stake in terms of human evolution to not be.
quote:
Originally written by Yogani:
Conversely, where there is the assumption of attainment or of having arrived, actions can be distorted accordingly, leading to a rigid teaching, proselytizing, sectarianism, and a shift in focus from spiritual practices to the one who has supposedly arrived. It is a pitfall of the mind commonly found on either the side of the teacher, the student, or both.
I thought that was an especially interesting couple of lines. I had to look up the word proselytizing as I didn't know what it meant. [;)]
quote:
Originally written by Yogani:
It is like asking a bird who is yet to grow wings to jump off the top of a building. The bird with fully developed and functioning wings will keep saying to the one with undeveloped wings, “Come on, you can do it. Just jump. Don’t worry about the wings.” Does this make any sense? The wings have to come first. Then we can fly."
K-man,
How do you know that people who do not yet have the wings to fly with, are not going to follow your advice, and attempt to jump from the nest before they are ready? What's the clean up plan for the kundalini messes that often follow?
Christi
-
quote:
How can we distinguish between someone who is truly enlightened and someone who is perhaps a very intelligent spiritual marketer-person that only got a taste and is claiming to be enlightened? Or how do you know that the person even had a valid experience?
Hi TI,
Getting back to your original question which I think is extremely valid. I am not sure we can be absolutely certain and would suggest it doesn't matter.
We all have an innate ability to recognize the truth of "the Absolute" (insert whatever word is meaningful for you) prior to the guessing mind getting involved. If the words of a given individual ring true for you and you feel they are expanding then that is the value right then and there.
I have found 6 year olds to be "enlightening", I find a number of perspectives here in this forum expanding, Wayne Wirs words certainly deepened the witnessing here as have Yogani, Adyashanti, Byron Katie and a host of others along the way.
We have to be discerning for ourselves, in the end we alone are responsible for our spiritual path and the inner wisdom in our hearts, (not the guessing mind), is our guiding light. If our desire is true for the right reasons, the right answers will come along. If we are all about getting a better ego, then we will certainly get side tracked easily.
quote:
Or better yet, how can we determine that someone is enlightened when the experience of enlightenment that they describe as proof of enlightenment is very similar to psychic experiences by un-enlightened people? (The void, past lives, remote viewing..)
From my perspective, way too much emphasis on experiences which although nice signs of progress are ultimately a dime a dozen. Experiences are not accurate measures of a person's inner condition or our own inner condition on a daily basis. Plenty of people have had experiences of the void, absolute, witnessing, ecstasy, bliss etc. few are likely "enlightened" whatever that means to you. It is likely a unique definition for everyone and as we all know once a definition is used, it can only ever at best be a shade of the living reality which is always flowing and changing.
Since experiences are fleeting, more importantly, what is the current state of mind of a person/ body on a daily basis? How much "me" is in the equation of every action and word? Is the energy of the individual flowing continuously in the direction of the greater good or is it subtly seeking to validate "i/ me". Is love apparent in action?
These are more precise measures from my perspective and at best, only accurately applied to ourselves.
-
Hi Christi & All,
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Thanks for being rigorous with this, Christi; good stuff is coming out of this dialog.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
You know me K-man, always rigorous! [:)] There is too much at stake in terms of human evolution to not be.
Agreed wholeheartedly; as I'm sure you know, that's the basis for everything I'm saying here, as well.
[:)]
quote:
Originally written by Yogani:
Conversely, where there is the assumption of attainment or of having arrived, actions can be distorted accordingly, leading to a rigid teaching, proselytizing, sectarianism, and a shift in focus from spiritual practices to the one who has supposedly arrived. It is a pitfall of the mind commonly found on either the side of the teacher, the student, or both.
Yes, emphatically agreed; I attempted to address this in my last post; perhaps I was not completely clear, regarding my views on this dynamic.
Yogani uses some key terms in his statement above, which clue us in to exactly what he is talking about:
"assumption of attainment or of having arrived"
"actions can be distorted accordingly"
"supposedly arrived"
"a pitfall of the mind"
... in a nutshell, Yogani is referring to non-actual enlightenment, not to actual enlightenment.
Limited mind isn't only subject to pitfalls; it basically is a pitfall.
If you care to re-read my dialog with Tibetan Ice, this was my main point of emphasis: turning to any forms in mind, any concepts, any latching on to statements made in books ... is much, much more likely to occlude and preclude enlightenment, than it is to facilitate enlightenment.
The past is a concept; all ideas about enlightenment are concepts; they have nothing at all to do with what we're discussing here.
That's why I am repeatedly warning against the fallacy of trusting in any conceptual mental forms, related to enlightenment.
If nothing else, Christi, maybe you can take some solace in the fact that this dialog of ours will hopefully at least serve to emphasize the points that you, Yogani (per his writings you're quoting) and I, would all say are very important for anyone interested in enlightenment to be clear concerning.
And that's one of the main reasons I very sincerely appreciate your rigor, in questioning; we're truly on the same page, as far as the importance of emphasizing the very items you're expressing concern about, thanks again!
[:)]
The only aspect of this discussion I'm a bit unclear about, is that the very points you're raising, are points that I feel I've repeatedly addressed, presumably in the same way you would like to see them addressed (meaning: I feel I've warned against the very things you're raising as concerns) .... and so I'm not sure what the specific basis for your concern is, based on what I'm saying in this thread. If you can do anything to clarify this, it will be greatly appreciated (and may well serve to shorten the "back and forth", here).
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I thought that was an especially interesting couple of lines. I had to look up the word proselytizing as I didn't know what it meant. [;)]
I was pretty sure I knew, but looked it up, just to be sure:
proselytize: "to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit."
What's a "proselyte"?
"A new convert to a doctrine or religion."
(Just to clarify for anyone who may not care to look it up. [:)])
Did you (Christi) point out that term (proselytizing) because you see some proselytizing apparently happening, in this thread?
If you do see such, please point it out; I fully concur with Yogani, and presumably with you, that this is not something we'd like to see, nor is it something that would be helpful to anyone; I'll gladly join in helping to eradicate any proselytizing, and/or any misperceptions concerning proselytizing, in terms of the dialog in this thread, as best I can.
[:)]
And, regarding the term proselytizing, it turns out, my definition had indeed morphed a bit over the years, while still remaining relatively accurate, I'd say.
Prior to looking up the term "afresh", I probably would have defined proselytizing as:
"to annoy in the name of God."
[:D]
quote:
Originally written by Yogani:
It is like asking a bird who is yet to grow wings to jump off the top of a building. The bird with fully developed and functioning wings will keep saying to the one with undeveloped wings, “Come on, you can do it. Just jump. Don’t worry about the wings.” Does this make any sense? The wings have to come first. Then we can fly."
Again, wholeheartedly agreed.
Truth is always inherently helpful and uplifting.
Stating truth is always inherently helpful and uplifting.
"The wings have to come first, and then we can fly."
~Yogani
Yes, this is true; on every level of consciousness ... and brings us to the opportunity for an important clarification .... which I will do my best to state clearly, yet again:
*Enlightenment is a description for conscious experiencing of the full field of awareness, including identifying primarily with (and "as"), and living subjectively from original unagitated awareness (aka self, aka true nature, aka pure bliss consciousness).
*Unenlightenment is a description for unconsciously identifying solely with various remembered aspects of objectivity (thoughts, feelings, conditioned memories, body, limited mind, personality, relationships, possessions, beliefs, etc.), and thereby misperceiving and experiencing self to be partial and unwhole.
*In unenlightenment, original unagitated awareness (aka enlightenment) hasn't "gone anywhere"; if it wasn't always already here, nothing else at all would be, or could be; appearances arise display and subside within a single field. This isn't simply non-dual or metaphysical philosophy; if you prefer the single field of reality to be indicated by scientific and/or mathematical symbolism, simply talk to any qualified quantum physicist. They may be unclear on the consciousness aspect, but will certainly verify the non-duality of reality. Reality can't be dual; it can only be perceived as dual.
*The terms Enlightenment and Unenlightenment, as defined above, are just that: terms, definitions; indicators which can hopefully help to demystify some of the many misconceptions surrounding enlightenment ... which is nothing more nor less than consciously knowing-living as original unagitated awareness.
*I'm not suggesting anyone should attempt flight before growing wings; that's one of the least enjoyable experiences the "pre-winged" can have. [8D] It's very different to say, "Hey ... made it home; it's doable ... you can, too!!" ... than it is to say "I am enlightened; follow me; I shall lead you; I have attained".
If you hear anyone saying such things, it is best to arise and move quickly ... filled with enthusiasm and gratitude for the inherent sense of truth which motivates the movement ......... in the opposite direction.
[:D]
*If you notice the vibe of what Wayne Wirs is saying, and how he is saying it; what Adyashanti is saying and how he is saying it, and what I am saying and how I am saying it .... all we're saying is: enlightenment is real; it's wonderful, in a normal and real way; you can actually have it, too; all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ... and everything else.
*It's the part after the "dot dot dot" which usually requires some time with yoga (or equivalent spiritual disciplines) and meditation.
*This is because the misconceptions of partiality are literally encoded into the neurobiology of the body-mind; yoga is the science of eradicating these misconceptions (which take the forms of energetic blocks which are eradicated from neurobiology and neuropsychology, via the processes of re-creation which are facilitated by yoga practices, and the kundalini which awakens and arises from yoga practices, based around a foundation of deep meditation).
*It's not about attainment or arrival on the part of any individual; enlightenment is the result of the dissolution of the concept of individuality.
*Adyashanti says: "I am a window; look through me, not at me." "Like that." I could care less if anyone perceives "Kirtanman" as enlightened or not, other than to point out that there's not actually a Kirtanman to be enlightened, and so, having such a misconception would inherently obscure reality.
*I'm not interested in my enlightenment; I'm interested in yours.
[:)]
*The mind-trap that Yogani and I, along with others, are pointing to, is: premature presumption of enlightenment always involves activity of limited mind .... if you think you're enlightened, you're not. If you care if anyone thinks you're enlightened, you're not. If you have any interest in positioning yourself as enlightened, you're not.
*What exactly does "limited mind" mean? It means focus on form (thoughts, concepts, beliefs, ideas, energies, feelings, perceptions). That's why neo-advaita is so problematic. Neo-advaitins run around saying: "This is it!!" And limited ego-mind goes "Oh, okay, awesome; I am free!!"
And then, somewhere between a couple of minutes and a couple of days elapse, and the newly faux-advaitin, faux-liberated ego-mind starts feeling like: "But this *sucks*; I was led to believe it was *good*; I'm still a bundle of desires, fears, doubts and conflicts! But Sri Swami Neoadvaitananda says I'm now free, and that all the great swamis were just dressing up what's always already here. Crap."
*And so, I will do my best to be very emphatically clear:
I am not saying or suggesting or promoting or teaching anything that is even the tiniest bit like the above-described neo-advaitin view.
*What I am saying is: the true "This Is It" is that the full field of original, unagitated awareness is what is always already here; for anyone who is not living from this place, I am saying this by way of encouragement.
*What I am saying is this:
*Not at all long ago, I did not experience or live from or know myself to be this full field of original unagitated awareness myself.
*Then I had experiences of this, then identity began to shift to this original awareness, intermittently at first and then with more stability; recently it has stabilized here, and sense-of-identity with the limited self no longer arises.
*I can tell you ... I am telling you ... from living experiencing now, that everything {accurate [:)]} that has ever been written about the utter freedom of no longer dreaming I'm a limited body-mind, and knowing I am liberated, infinite awareness .... is true, and that it can be fully known in your living experiencing, too.
*As most AYPers who have followed my posts, and/or my presence here at this forum know, this living experiencing of complete liberation is a fairly recent occurrence.
The implications of this are:
AYP Works; AYP Worked For Me; AYP Can Work For You, Too.
(And I am not saying the process must involve AYP, or even anything all that similar ... just that for most of us, there is a process ... and there are many processes in many traditions proven to work to restore original, liberated awareness to the full knowing of itself.)
*I have been very fortunate in that, after a few years of sporadic fits and starts with yoga and meditation, I discovered and began practicing AYP a bit over three years ago, and it has worked out very, very well for me. There's been a fairly consistent "liberation-ward" trajectory reflected in my posts over time, and in the many, many many words those posts contain. [:D]
*Recently, as I noticed somewhat after the fact, identity literally shifted to the formless awareness; just as you feel like "you" in whatever way you do ... possibly a few readers experience self/non-self (the view/subjectivity life is actually lived "from"; the experiencer of all your experiences) as formless awareness ... most readers, though, are presumably feeling somewhat identified with form.
*Sense of identification with form is unenlightenment; it is the dream occuring within reality.
*When I say "identification", I mean "the general feeling that feels like who you are".
*And so, what's moving here ... what is writing these words .... is love; that's all. Enlightenment is real; enlightenment is all that's real. It's available for all of us; it's just the complete living-knowing of how consciousness actually works, as opposed to living as a tiny slice of conceptuality, dreaming you are separate from your own original wholeness.
*All I am doing here is offering encouragement, to help others who may not be living as liberation yet, to shorten their journey home, if possible; to invite you all to the the living experiencing of this beautiful, yet simply real, liberated reality as soon as you are fully willing.
*Creating this full willingness in your own life is what meditation and yoga practices (and other accurate spiritual practices and paths) are for, and what they help facilitate.
"You become a living invitation."
~Adyashanti
*And so, there is seeking, there is releasing, there is finding, there is knowing; there is liberation ... and there is liberating ... inviting; that's all.
[:)]
*Outlining this can only be helpful; all spiritual teachers from every tradition, throughout history, and all around the world ... especially those teachers of the kind that most of us here seem to resonate with, and certainly including Yogani .... are each, all and only saying the same thing.
*Perhaps an example will help. Imagine we are Advanced Exercise Practices. We acknowledge that there are a lot of good exercise systems out there, yet we see the opportunity for improvement by creating an environment of "open source development", to try to make the good exercise techniques and frameworks we know of, even better. Because we're about Exercise, our goal, instead of "Enlightenment" is a loosely understood, often mystifying, often somewhat distorted condition known as "Health" ... that those who haven't realized the full benefits of Advanced Exercise Practices can only conceive of, since they don't know Health in experience.
I'm simply saying: complete Health is real; there is a point at which Health is experienced, 100%, and it can't be not-known when it happens; it is real, and having it ... being it ... is who and what we each and all actually are now. I am telling you all this for one reason: I feel an inherent arising of invitation to you (you, reading these words) to enjoy Health, too; you, of course, can have it too; Health is what you actually, ever are; a lifetime of conditioned conceptuality has just helped to insure you don't consciously know this. That's where practices, where awareness, and where accepting invitation ... can all be helpful.
*I am emphatically NOT saying anything along the lines of "don't exercise" (practice); that would be like saying "you're all already Health; regardless of your current condition ... don't exercise!" That would be counter-productive to the invitation I'm extending, and it is not something original awareness could, let alone would, ever say.
*There's still exercise (in actuality: daily practices) here, even though it's not done to gain anything; Health is living this life, now ... it's more an arising of action in the body-mind, inherently arising from the original awareness of Health I AM.
*Once again: just as ego might claim "premature enlightenment" ... it is also only ego which would be afraid to invite, or which would feel that truth and invitation should not be expressed. Full knowing, enlightenment, or whatever one might care to call it, erases all doubt and confusion, including of the types described in this paragraph.
*However, I agree with you (Christi) that not falling into the types of mind-traps which Yogani has warned against is something that is important enough to emphasize and clarify. I hope that I have done so sufficiently in this post; if you (Christi) still feel "otherwise", please say so, and we'll continue the discussion ... something I'm truly happy to do.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
K-man,
How do you know that people who do not yet have the wings to fly with, are not going to follow your advice, and attempt to jump from the nest before they are ready? What's the clean up plan for the kundalini messes that often follow?
Christi
I'm not sure if you mean:
"How do I know that "people who do not yet have wings to fly" are not going to follow the advice I'm giving ..... and so, they're going to jump before they are ready? (despite my advice against doing anything of the sort)."
(meaning: You understand I am not advising anyone to do anything before they are ready, yet you are concerned my statements might still be misunderstood, and that jumping may happen, anyway.)
OR, if you mean:
"How do I know that "people who do not yet have wings to fly" might not follow the advice that you believe I am giving ...... and which could possibly mean "jumping before they're ready?"
Please clarify, if you can.
And I'll try to do the same:
*I am not advising anyone to "jump" anywhere.
*I'm just inviting everyone to know that enlightenment and liberation are real, to understand that original unagitated awareness is the ground of being, and it is true nature, and that noticing what's real, combined with practices, can help to produce the simple beauty of this living freedom in all of us.
(I have quoted a line from Daniel Odier's book Tantric Quest, in the past: "Just jump in; that is the great yoga!" ... but that simply means: engage with life; don't be hesitant, or let fear determine your actions ... because that is what reinforces unenlightenment. I think that's very different than what you're talking about, here.)
*I do agree with Yogani's point that "flying without wings" is neither wise nor useful. "Flying without wings" is an analogy for the error of thinking that one is enlightened, or that "this is it" can be understood or realized, when thinking or other forms in awareness are used as any kind of a benchmark. Original unagitated formless awareness *is* the set of wings with which we fly home ... and everywhere else, too; it's the freedom beyond imagination that is true nature ... soaring happily in the skies above the clouds of limited thinking and conceptual conditioning.
*It is then that we become Kecharins .... "travelers in the sky"; the reality of original unagitated awareness we ever are, now.
*Knowing this (enlightenment; true nature) might take some significant practicing, or "spiritual journeying" ... it took a lifetime of reinforcement to feel like the "you that you feel like" when you start meditation and yoga; it will likely take some undoing to no longer be bound by those misconceptions which literally form physically-based protein-encoded memory.
The Good News Is: Yogis & Yoginis figured out how to re-format and re-program the body-mind to be a conscious vehicle for the awareness we actually are, as opposed to simply being an unconscious repository for memory, imagination and misconception.
*It took me a few years. It may be able to be a shorter period for you (anyone reading), because understanding of how to go about it all is continuously clarifying.
[:)]
In closing, here's a video from Adyashanti that I feel gets to the very essence of what we're discussing here, very very nicely, directly and powerfully.
VIDEO: Adyashanti on Chasing Enlightenment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WpUuNN-BLw)
Please Note: If you're not familiar with the name Adya mentions a couple times in the video (about a guy who was seeking enlightenment ... and, despite that [8D] ... how he actually found enlightenment, anyway ... [:)]) ... he's saying Bankei (http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/bankei_zen_master.html).
I truly hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Christi and Kirtanman :)
Thank you very much for this discussion. I am still here. I'm carefully preparing my next set of questions and dealing with a strange phenomenon.
Hi TI,
You're very welcome; thanks for engaging in this dialog.
The galaxy-phenomenon perception is likely somewhat interesting, but anything of that type I ever experienced (a bit over a year ago, I experienced vivid, perfectly formed geometric shapes in my third eye; about three and a half years ago, when my third eye first opened, the "star" that is sometimes seen in meditation was present all the time, with eyes open or closed, for a few weeks).
Ultimately, nothing that's a form matters all that much; all the wide varieties of energetic flux we each and all experience aren't important in and of themselves; it's just part of the overall process; everyone's is different.
The Ken Wilber quote, on the other hand, is potentially very, very useful ... it points directly to what I've been saying about original, unagitated awareness .... subjective awareness; experiencing awareness.
One aspect of the quote I really like is the way he describes how noticing appearances in awareness, such as clouds and sky, is an effortless activity.
Just as our senses have a relaxed restful-yet-alert natural state .... this is exactly what original unagitated awareness is experienced as being like ... exactly.
Notice your sense of sight right now.
Stop reading for a moment.
Relax the focus of your vision, and just notice, in the relaxed-yet-alert effortless condition of seeing, when you are just "taking in" the sights in your environment, without focus on any particular thing.
Now, do the same with your hearing; just take in, without focusing on any one sound ... the sounds in your environment, in the relaxed-yet-alert natural state of your hearing.
The natural state that is talked about is exactly the same thing ... with resting, non-focused awareness.
Just as your seeing has a natural state, without focus, relaxed-yet-alert, as does your hearing ...... so do awareness.
Relaxed vision feels open, yes?
Relaxed hearing feels open, too, yes?
Relaxed sight is not any of the things it sees.
Relaxed hearing is not any of the sounds it hears.
Relaxed awareness is not any of the thoughts it notices.
There is a natural relaxed-yet-alert state for all senses ... including mind.
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi Everyone :)
The purpose of this discussion is not to denigrate anyone's experiences nor dismiss anyone's achievements so far.
The purpose of this post is to explain my definition of 'enlightenment' and in doing so, help to point out why I feel so many people are falling short of this 'final permanent state' of being, and why I don't believe most of the people in the world who claim to be, or appear to be enlightened are enlightened.
What is 'enlightenment', 'being awakened', 'cosmic consciousness', 'self realization', 'God Consciouness', 'Nirvana', 'Nagual -Carlos Casteneda', the Tao, presence, the Now, or what ever you want to call it?
I have no idea, yet I have many ideas.
Omni-present, Omni-potent, Omni-Omni for all time and creation.
If you are realized, then in my mind, you should have these characteristics, all of them, even if you do not use them or have ever exhibited these characteristics:
You can 'be' everywhere or anywhere at any time. You can commune with any and all beings in creation, at any time, for you are 'all'. You love everyone and everything because you are everyone and everything and you love yourself.
You are super intelligent, for you know all, everything. All knowledge from all time is readily available. You can beat any computer at chess, understand string theory (and whether or not it is true), understand atomic reactions, you know what the past was and what future will be, there is no mystery left in existence. You understand the chakras, kundalini, the levels of kundalini, the planes of existence, reincarnation, karma, the void, life..
You are super powerful, unimaginably powerful. You can walk on water, walk through walls, fly through the air, heal any disease, bring people back to life, know the thoughts of others, know what the future will bring, you can materialize gems from prana, become invisible, take any form you wish, for you are omnipresent and omnipotent. You have endless energy and the knowledge and power to create and destroy. You can create universes (or destroy them) in the blink of an eye.
You realize that all of these abilities are nothing special because life is but a dream; a child at play. Existence is a cartoon world and 'you' are not the Bugs Bunny you think you are. You are the one with the remote control. :)
That is my definition of 'enlightenment'.
Anyone who reduces my definition of enlightenment to anything less is suspect and, in my eyes, has not yet realized the omni-potent omni-present state.
Anyone who redefines my definition of 'enlightenment' into fewer components, such as the oneness theory that has at its roots a 'unitary consciousness' as the sole process for enlightenment, I would say is missing the 'intelligence' and the 'power -energy' components of enlightenment.
Note: "I'm not saying that the experience of unitary consciousness is not valid, it is entirely valid, for I have experienced that type of experience myself during heart viewing meditations. And Patanjali does say: "Focusing with perfect discipline on the heart, one understands the nature of consciousness." But understanding the nature of consciousness is a far step away from my definition of enlightenment.
So now you can see my reluctance to accept a lesser definition of 'enlightenment'. So now you can see my reluctance to accept anyone's teachings that distill or reduce 'enlightenment' to incomplete components.
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Patanjali does say: "Focusing with perfect discipline on the heart, one understands the nature of consciousness." But understanding the nature of consciousness is a far step away from my definition of enlightenment.
Thanks for the clarification.
[:)]
And yes, it would seem that what we're discussing here, and your conception of enlightenment are two very different things.
quote:
So now you can see my reluctance to accept a lesser definition of 'enlightenment'. So now you can see my reluctance to accept anyone's teachings that distill or reduce 'enlightenment' to incomplete components.
Why do you conceive of definitions different than your current definition as "lesser"?
It sounds as though you're saying that if someone's definition or description of enlightenment is different than your current conclusion, that is it either "lesser" or "incomplete".
Is that an accurate re-statement of what you're saying?
(I'm genuinely seeking to be clear on what's being said; if you have already decided "how it is", I'm not sure what there would be to discuss.)
[:)]
As I said in another post in this thread:
We're discussing living consciously from the full spectrum of original, unaltered awareness ... and we're (loosely, in my case) called that "enlightenment".
Part of the experiencing of this awareness is a shifting in identity from a limited idea of self, to an unlimited experiencing of, and identification with, the full field of awareness.
Many, including myself, are comfortable calling this "enlightenment".
However, enlightenment is, ultimately just a word; the exact evaluation of what a given word means, especially when it points beyond the realm of meaning entirely, can vary greatly.
I certainly don't match your definition of enlightenment.
I've never known, or heard of any enlightened teacher (or, one who is widely recognized as such, using traditional definitions of the term .... Ramana Maharshi, Swami Lakshmanjoo, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Adyashanti, Yogani, etc.) who would fit your definition of enlightenment, either.
However, there are definitions of enlightenment given in widely-respected, centuries-old texts (the Shiva Sutras, the Yoga Spandakarika, the Vijnanabhairava Tantra, the Yoga Sutras, etc.), as well as some more modern compilations and teachings (I Am That by Nisargadatta Maharaj, the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, Emptiness Dancing by Adyashanti, the AYP Lessons and AYP Enlightenment Series of books by Yogani) which do match, either exactly, or very closely .... the experiencing of enlightenment being described in this thread.
Enlightenment isn't about the word "enlightenment"; it's about the reality to which the word points.
And so, if you wish to define enlightenment as you do, that's fine ... but I'm not so sure you'll ever find anyone who matches it.
There are stories/rumors of those with amazing physical and energetic "siddhis" ... superpowers, if you will.
The Yoga Sutras and the Shiva Sutras both list them under "obstructions", and "obstacles" to realization and enlightenment; not as qualities of enlightenment.
Why?
Because even if one relaxes mind enough to be able to do some of the things you suggest, the manifestation of "actual super powers" brings limited mind roaring back into the picture -- either in the experiencing of the one with the powers (this is quite likely, in fact; it's only limited mind who would seek such powers, in the first place), or in the experiencing of those who experience the powers demonstrated.
Enlightenment, by most traditional and modern definitions, is about unitive awareness.
It seems that this is not the case with your definition of enlightenment, and that's fine.
Adyashanti has a great line about omniscience, where he says (basically; I'm paraphrasing just a little ... I heard this live at a satsang, years ago) ...
"People think that when you're enlightened, you know everything. Actually, the opposite is true; I know so much less than I did before I was enlightened, it's not even funny!"
(The satsang group laughed, and then he laughed, and continued ....)
"And some of you are probably thinking: 'Greeeat! THIS isn't what I came here for!' ... and, if anyone feels that way, you can get your donation back at the door ....!"
(And he laughed some more, as did everyone.)
I can concur with this (not in the sense of "enlightenment is or isn't blah blah blah") .... just in the sense that as the experiencing of awareness completed, the sense of "knowing things" dissipated, rather than grew.
There are three basic tiers to consciousness; knowledge is only applicable in the first two (physical and mental), and not the third (spiritual; nirvikalpa; turiya, etc.).
Thoughtless (knowledge-less) awareness is taught as being the highest condition of consciousness in every mystical and yogic system.
When limited mind falls away, self-knowing and infinite awareness are revealed (to have never been anywhere "else", but simply to have been blocked by ideas).
"The Tao which can be spoken of is not the Tao."
~Tao Te Ching
The Self is liberated awareness.
(Caitanyamatma - Shiva Sutras 1.1)
Knowledge is bondage.
(Jnanam Bandhah - Shiva Sutras 1.2)
This all sounds very different than your definition of enlightenment, and again that's fine.
Thanks for sharing your definition.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman,
Your normally *extremely* long posts are turning into veritable essays! [:)]
quote:
*However, I agree with you (Christi) that not falling into the types of mind-traps which Yogani has warned against is something that is important enough to emphasize and clarify. I hope that I have done so sufficiently in this post; if you (Christi) still feel "otherwise", please say so, and we'll continue the discussion ... something I'm truly happy to do.
Great. [:)]
Your last post adressed to me helped to clarify many things, but there are still other things which I am concerned about so maybe we could discuss a little further...
quote:
.... all we're saying is: enlightenment is real; it's wonderful, in a normal and real way; you can actually have it, too; all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ... and everything else.
I think this is the crux of the matter. What I am hearing you say (in this thread and many others) is a lot of the stuff before the dots and not a lot, if any, of the stuff after the dots (until your last, helpful clarifying post). In other words, often, it sounds like you are saying: "All you need to do is drop your ideas about being unenlightened, and you will realize that you have been enlightened all along".
Now you say this is an invitation, but it could very easily be interpreted as a practice... something you have to do in order to realize enlightenment, an invitation to practice if you like. In fact, it is something which can be done, and enlightenment can be realized by doing it when the conditions for practice are right. You offer this invitation so enthusiastically that it could easily be mistaken for proselytizing even if it isn't.
As I mentioned in my posts above, I feel that there are certain dangers with this approach and I am concerned that you are not doing enough to high-light the possible dangers and help people avoid these potential pitfalls. I will try and explain as clearly as I can what I see these dangers as being, and what I see you not doing, in terms of helping people to avoid them:
The first danger is that someone hearing those words will think: "Great, I'm already enlightened, there is nothing I need to do", what Yogani calls the illusion of having arrived as we discussed above. Over the years, I have met many people who have told me that there is no need to practice Yoga, because we are all already enlightened, and any attempt to "get enlightened", will simply take us further away from that which we already are. In their view, any striving, which includes engaging in any spiritual practice at all, is an expression of the desire of egoic consciousness and is just part of what “thinking mind” thinks it needs to do in order to get something which it could never get anyway. It is a serious trap, because the logic is impeccable, to the rational mind, and as long as someone is operating from the rational mind, there is little that anyone can do to help someone caught in the trap. On reading your posts, I can't see much that would help someone reading along, avoid falling into this trap.
A second danger is what Yogani calls "thinking about thinking" which (again) we also discussed above. Even if you are writing “from and as” a place of undifferentiated pure awareness, by the time your words come out of your mouth, or are typed onto a computer screen, they are in the form of concepts. If someone has little or no inner silence present, and is operating largely from a place of mentalization, then these concepts are going to be taken at face value, and the trap of "thinking about thinking" can begin. It seems to me that when you talk about constantly warning people about this very danger repeatedly in your posts, you are referring to the way you say things to the effect of: "don't believe anything that limited mind tells you, because limited mind is the very thing that is preventing you from seeing your true nature as original unconditioned awareness".
What concerns me is that someone who is coming from a place of conceptualization (limited mind) may take that concept (your advice and warning), and make it the thought about which thought revolves. In other words someone may think that all they need to do is to "figure out" how to stop having un-enlightened thoughts, and then they will "get it". Again, you wouldn't believe the number of people I have come across playing this game, after having encountered neo-advaitist teachings. It’s the biggest tail chasing game imaginable, and can go on for years. So what I am saying is that putting in the caveat: "Aything you could think about enlightenment, isn't it", isn't necessarily going to prevent people from falling into the trap of "thinking about thinking". I feel that a stronger, and clearer warning about the necessity of the presence of inner silence is useful here, as the trap of “thinking about thinking”, or “working enlightenment out”, can’t be engaged in when the mind is silent.
The third danger, as (again) I mentioned above briefly, is the danger of premature kundalini awakening. If someone does manage to drop all unenlightened thoughts (after following your invitation to do so), and has an awakening experience (an experience of the oneness of all things), it can happen either after, or before the awakening of kundalini. If it happens before the awakening of kundalini, then it is a kind of "all bets off" scenario. An awakening experience can be (as I'm sure you know) an extremely powerful experience and can last anything from hours or days, to weeks or months. The pull on kundalini can be very strong and so there is no way of gauging the speed of kundalini awakening that may follow, or, for that matter, the degree of readiness of the person involved.
You say that you are not advising anyone to fly who does not have the wings to fly with. What I hear you saying, repeatedly is this: "enlightenment is real; it's wonderful, in a normal and real way; you can actually have it, too; all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ". I don’t hear any mention of who may be ready to follow this advice safely, and who may not in terms of kundalini.
The thing about saying things like: “enlightenment is wonderful, all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ...”, is that most people simply don't “get it”. In fact, in my experience the vast majority of people don't get it. If most people did get it, all of Yogani's writings would have been a waste of time. It would simply have been enough for him to have written: "Let go of all of your illusory thoughts about reality, and see that we are and have always been, one."
20 words. [:)]
Then most people would "get it", and expand their individuated awareness into the undifferentiated awareness that is reality, living in a continual flow of pure-bliss-consciousness, and the energetic radiance from their bodies would be enough to carry everyone else into unity consciousness.
But unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work that way. Many people have been exposed to this kind of thinking now and some would say that of those hearing it only one in a thousand "gets it". Personally I would say that is an optimistic figure. So we have to ask: what happens to everyone else, the ones who hear it, but don't "get it"? What happens to the other 999? That is where the pitfalls can come in to play and why I feel it is so important to guard against them.
What we really need to be asking here is: "What is the best way to bring someone to the point where they are able to see through the illusory nature of the self, and live as unbound awareness, forever free?" In my opinion, and experience, it has always been, spiritual practices. I am sure you would agree, so what I am saying is that very often I don't feel that comes across well through the way you write, and very often, something quite other comes across. I am also saying that the cautionary advice you give, even when it is there, could well be insufficient given the potential problems involved.
I hope that helps to clarify my concerns.
Christi
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Omni-present, Omni-potent, Omni-Omni for all time and creation.
If you are realized, then in my mind, you should have these characteristics, all of them, even if you do not use them or have ever exhibited these characteristics:
You can 'be' everywhere or anywhere at any time. You can commune with any and all beings in creation, at any time, for you are 'all'. You love everyone and everything because you are everyone and everything and you love yourself.
You are super intelligent, for you know all, everything. All knowledge from all time is readily available. You can beat any computer at chess, understand string theory (and whether or not it is true), understand atomic reactions, you know what the past was and what future will be, there is no mystery left in existence. You understand the chakras, kundalini, the levels of kundalini, the planes of existence, reincarnation, karma, the void, life..
You are super powerful, unimaginably powerful. You can walk on water, walk through walls, fly through the air, heal any disease, bring people back to life, know the thoughts of others, know what the future will bring, you can materialize gems from prana, become invisible, take any form you wish, for you are omnipresent and omnipotent. You have endless energy and the knowledge and power to create and destroy. You can create universes (or destroy them) in the blink of an eye.
You realize that all of these abilities are nothing special because life is but a dream; a child at play. Existence is a cartoon world and 'you' are not the Bugs Bunny you think you are. You are the one with the remote control. :)
That is my definition of 'enlightenment'.
It looks like you are drawing the line a lot higher up in terms of what we should or should not call enlightenment. Personally I don't see anything wrong with that, it is really just a question of semantics. The real question for me is, what is useful? Jesus didn't become Christ in a day, it took him years (and possibly lifetimes) of spiritual practices and a gradual unfoldment and expansion on both a conscious and energetic level.
What we could say, is that unity consciousness (which Kirtanman and Wayne Wirs are describing) is an initial stage of enlightenment, and that there are further stages beyond that. I referred to this a while ago in another thread as the stages of spiritual unfoldment beyond the realization of advaita.
Ultimately, it is really just a question of agreeing on language, or on agreeing to disagree on language but still understanding what the other person is talking about. [:)]
Christi
-
Enlightenment is, so they say, beyond 'point of view'.
Discussing our points of view about no-point-of-view, as we do, is a fine paradox.
But try as we might, we can't stop until it stops.
chinna
-
Here goes a grain of sand that surely is going to be lost in the middle of all this sand...
I don't care about enlightenment or whether a certain person calls itself enlightened or whether he truly is or not, or even what the definition of enlightenment really is. Enlightenemnt has been having too much hype nowadays. Enlightenment is a label, a concept, and at such has many definitions, as many as there are people in the world. We all have different images in our heads of what enlightenment is or should be.
There is one thing I care about though: the state/feeling/sense of wholeness, peace, contentment, or, as I like to call it, true happiness. I believe this is what the sages refer to when they speak abotu enlightenment. This is the "way life meant to be lived" (not undermining all other states, they are all useful and precious!). This state is definitely not a concept and we all felt this to a degree or another in our lives, even if just for a brief moment. That is why we "seek" it! You wouldn't seek something you wouldn't believe in or had a sense is real!
So what really matters is if someone is truly happy or content. No, what truly matters is if WE (with this I mean YOU reading this words) are truly happy or content.
This contentment is not a concept, it is a true state, as the state of depression, sadness, confusion, but this other state of true happiness includes all possible states. It is whole, it is beyond all other states and yet it includes all other states. It adores all. I know this for a fact because I've been there. It is the sweetest thing. Once you taste it your life will never be the same, nothing else will seem to fullfill you nearly as much. And that state is not something that you obtain through external things at all, it is purely the shift in the relationship you have with yourself. Pure and simple. Change the relationship you have with yourself, the way you view yourself, the way you treat yourself, and you will be changing the relationship you have with the cosmos. You will be changing everuthing.
Now, the trick here is that a person that is truly content does not need to prove it or even show it to anybody else. The beauty of this is that this state is its own reward. It is whole, it is complete, simple.
But it can be shared of course. That overflowing joy can't help but overflow. It is pure Love. But words are not needed necessarily, there are many ways in which it can flow, spontaneously. In fact we are always sharing, no matter in what state we are in, so if we are in that state of wholeness we are spreading pure love of course. That is all. Now go and seek that within yourself if that is what you aim for. Seek that feeling you once had even if briefly, inquire where did it come from, where did it go, can I get it back and how. Inquire what did it mean, what was that? See how you are treating yourself. Am I good to myself? Do I love myself? Am I being harsh, judgemental, violent towards myself? This will determine all other things in your life. Everything will be included.
This is just to say that the debate on what is enlightenemnt is frutiless and pointless. Once you get whatever you think you want, if it is at all worth it, you wouldn't care a tiny little bit what you call it, it is beyond any names or concepts or definitions. It is complete on its own. And the important thing is to experience it, if that is what you want and need.
My 2 cents...
All the very best!
-
I enjoyed your post YIL!
-
Hi Christi,
Thanks very much for staying with this dialog; you've made some very important points in this post that I very much appreciate.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Your last post adressed to me helped to clarify many things, but there are still other things which I am concerned about so maybe we could discuss a little further...
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
.... all we're saying is: enlightenment is real; it's wonderful, in a normal and real way; you can actually have it, too; all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ... and everything else.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I think this is the crux of the matter. What I am hearing you say (in this thread and many others) is a lot of the stuff before the dots and not a lot, if any, of the stuff after the dots (until your last, helpful clarifying post). In other words, often, it sounds like you are saying: "All you need to do is drop your ideas about being unenlightened, and you will realize that you have been enlightened all along".
Thanks, Christi. I can see how someone could potentially interpret that comment in that way ... and that is absolutely not what I am intending to convey.
What I am saying is this:
In my experience, there is a tendency to mystify and conceptualize enlightenment, which pushes the experience of it farther away.
In the "spirit of AYP", which is to help as many people to experience enlightenment as possible, I was attempting to give a clearer picture of the actuality of enlightenment.
My phrasing may have, for some people at least, potentially been counter-productive, so let me see if I can clear up what I was trying to say.
Our true nature is original unaugmented awareness.
The augmented awareness of limited-mind/ego occurs within (is a subset of) original awareness.
Original awareness is always already here.
Obviously, however, the experiencing of original unaugmented awareness is anything but always already here; "hence yoga".
"Dropping all ideas" about everything else includes much of what is stored in long-term physical memory (protein-encoded memory, in and as the brain and body).
Meditation and yoga practices literally reformat the body-mind .... literally, physically and energetically recreate it.
I have never known or known of an enlightened person (quote-unquote) who has not gone through this process.
I'm not sure it is possible to avoid this process.
A non-reformatted body-mind cannot contain and express enlightenment, any more than a prepubescent child can produce another child, sexually.
100% of the intent of my statements in this thread is this:
To help make sadhana (yogic practices) more efficient, by helping to eradicate some/all of the conceptual misperception surrounding enlightenment, by simply stating that enlightenment is attainable, that AYP can help us to experience (the fairly-generally accepted definition/condition of) enlightenment, and that no ideas about enlightenment are useful to facilitating the experience of enlightenment.
This includes the idea that enlightenment is found somewhere other than here, and "some when" other than now.
That's the entire point of my saying "enlightenment is real; enlightenment is all that's real".
I simply mean that enlightenment is nothing conceptual; it involves nothing that is not real.
Technically, this includes the condition of unenlightenment; if someone is suffering based upon misperceiving their true nature as partial and unwhole, this is part of reality .... but the basis for their suffering, their conceptual conditioning, is not real.
And so, if people "get" (mentally understand) that there's nothing about enlightenment that's actually outside of what they truly are, and specifically, what they truly are here and now (where else, and "when else", is there?), it can help them to understand that it is only conceptual misunderstanding, including conceptual misunderstanding encoded in long-term physical memory that is governing the neurochemistry of the body-mind ... that makes and projects unenlightenment.
Just as physical exercise reformats neurochemistry (on top of its other myriad health benefits), so does meditation and yoga.
Exercise primarily addresses physical and mental health; meditation and yoga practices help open the door to spiritual health ... and to the realms of infinite awareness beyond the experience of "physical and mental only".
Every instance of ego reinforces error in the body-mind.
Every instance of thought-free awareness reinforces truth in the body-mind.
And so, while the fulness of infinite, eternal, original unaugmented awareness is who and what we each and all actually are now ....
It will very, very likely take some significant meditation and yoga practices (or the practices of an equivalently efficacious set of spiritual disciplines) to create an "enlightenment capable" environment in a given body-mind.
The way to this experiencing has been known all over the world for thousands of years.
When language and culture "externalized" the human experience, the way back home was lost to all but a few in each area of the world (the mystics and yogis of the world's wisdom traditions).
I hope this clears up what I'm saying.
And just as importantly, I hope it inspires everyone reading, concerning what's possible.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Now you say this is an invitation, but it could very easily be interpreted as a practice... something you have to do in order to realize enlightenment, an invitation to practice if you like.
That seems to be getting down to the "definitional".
I am suggesting people drop all conceptual ideas, especially any they may think are connected with enlightenment.
I'm not suggesting it as any kind of a formal addition or enhancement to AYP; that's solely Yogani's realm.
I'm simply saying that it's useful to do.
Some might define that as a practice, because it involves the term "do".
I don't think of it as such, nor am I suggesting it as such.
The invitation is *to* the experiencing of enlightenment:
It's real; it's possible; it's worth anything and everything you might go through to get here.
The two primary sets of people I have in mind, when I'm saying the things I'm saying in this thread, are:
*Those who may be pushing enlightenment away from their own experience by conceptualizing it.
&
*Those who may wonder if meditation and yoga are "worth it", over the long run.
Enlightenment (the living experience of living unbound from and as original awareness) does involve utter liberation .... far beyond what the mind can conceive; it involves peace beyond all understanding and the end of all suffering.
I completely disagree with the neo-advaitin view of "this is it" ... if the sense of "this is it" leaves one with an experience that is anything short of what I describe above.
Where and how do I draw the line?
I don't.
Enlightenment is the living experience of the real ... which is whole, perfect and one; our true nature is formless awareness, utterly free; we are not limited to, or by, that which we conceive to limit us.
Identity shifts from the misconception of partiality, to no conception at all.
Anything that includes concepts in the sense of self is simply not real.
Enlightenment is the living experience of freedom from confusing concepts with actuality.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
In fact, it is something which can be done, and enlightenment can be realized by doing it when the conditions for practice are right. You offer this invitation so enthusiastically that it could easily be mistaken for proselytizing even if it isn't.
I'm not so sure I agree with you here, but respect your views as always, and am happy to try to "err" on the side of at least clarifying my view here, if at all possible.
In my experience, many people extend the amount of time it takes to reach enlightenment, or even to make significant progress in sadhana, because they understand at all that it is solely conceptual misunderstanding which ultimately binds them.
And so, the sooner that anyone can learn to see the amazing amount of conceptual stories with and by which they keep unenlightenment in place, the more quickly they will know their true nature, which includes the ongoing, living experience of completion, liberation, clarity and peace.
I don't see this as something the requires the "right conditions" ... but rather, something that anyone can and will be served by noticing and implementing.
Not doing this just involves keeping a dream, a lie, in place longer ... and, as far as I know, no one is ever actually benefited by doing this.
I'm not stating any of this as absolute fact, nor am I evangelizing it, just sharing living experience.
My enthusiasm is much more tied to:
The reality of enlightenment is infinitely better than any and all conceptions about it .... and, as I've said elsewhere in the forum quite a few times: "C'Mon IN; the Divine is Fine!!"
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
As I mentioned in my posts above, I feel that there are certain dangers with this approach and I am concerned that you are not doing enough to high-light the possible dangers and help people avoid these potential pitfalls. I will try and explain as clearly as I can what I see these dangers as being, and what I see you not doing, in terms of helping people to avoid them:
The first danger is that someone hearing those words will think: "Great, I'm already enlightened, there is nothing I need to do", what Yogani calls the illusion of having arrived as we discussed above. Over the years, I have met many people who have told me that there is no need to practice Yoga, because we are all already enlightened, and any attempt to "get enlightened", will simply take us further away from that which we already are. In their view, any striving, which includes engaging in any spiritual practice at all, is an expression of the desire of egoic consciousness and is just part of what “thinking mind” thinks it needs to do in order to get something which it could never get anyway. It is a serious trap, because the logic is impeccable, to the rational mind, and as long as someone is operating from the rational mind, there is little that anyone can do to help someone caught in the trap. On reading your posts, I can't see much that would help someone reading along, avoid falling into this trap.
Hopefully, I've clarified this, above.
Please let me know if you feel any clarity on what I'm actually saying, and/or if you still see any issues, per your concern mentioned above (I agree it is important to help people not to fall into this trap, if at all possible).
And, very good point ..... thank you for raising it.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
A second danger is what Yogani calls "thinking about thinking" which (again) we also discussed above. Even if you are writing “from and as” a place of undifferentiated pure awareness, by the time your words come out of your mouth, or are typed onto a computer screen, they are in the form of concepts.
Technically, this may be true ... but I'm not so sure that it's true generally. If you can give any examples of where you feel I'm stating things conceptually, please let me know.
My general intent is always to be as unambiguous as possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
If someone has little or no inner silence present, and is operating largely from a place of mentalization, then these concepts are going to be taken at face value, and the trap of "thinking about thinking" can begin.
True.
However, I would see physical exercise as offering a good analogy, once again, here.
People who have exercised, or engaged in sports or other athletic activities ... or those who have been doing AEP (Advanced Exercise Practices) for a while .... will have more "inherent facility" with the process, than someone who has never exercised, before.
However, good exercise principles are for everyone, and each person can adopt them, according to their own ability.
"Drop all conceptual stories" is something that anyone can at least start to look at, and attempt to implement.
This is the basis for many "consumer level" spiritual teachings, including The Work of Byron Katie, and The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti's teaches, and even AYP (I would say), along with quite a few others.
It seems to be very much suitable for a general audience.
As practices and inquiry deepen, and as practices and inquiry dissolve blocks and facilitate inner silence, one's ability to see and turn away from the conceptual increases.
I've just seen many people needlessly "circle" in unenlightenment for a long time, due to beliefs and concepts.
I don't see any kind of "readiness level" as a pre-requisite to start to notice this dynamic (viewing life and the world through the distorted lenses of one's conceptual conditioning).
And, I'm guessing that some readers, at least, may not have realize how fundamental being "stuck in the conceptual" is, to unenlightenment.
And so, I'm just trying to help everyone's process along, by stating:
*Dropping all conceptual distortion will help you realize the benefits of meditation practice much much faster than if you don't."
It's not an ancillary thing; it's primary.
AUM represents the three "normal" states of limited consciousness: waking, dreaming and deep sleep (A, U & M).
The "U", or dream layer, refers to mental form; mental images - imaginations, concepts, etc.
This also equates to discursive, conceptual thinking ("Life should be ..."; "people are ...", "I should ...."; "she shouldn't ...", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.).
When we identify with the reactive thinking, with which limited mind has "conditioned and been conditioned" over the course of a lifetime, we basically become a "thought me" ... a fictitious creation of our own limited mind (with a little/lot of "help" from the host of limited minds around the limited mind which seems to "be the person inhabiting this body-mind").
We become this thought-me by "giving and receiving" conceptual conditioning in the (so-called) waking state, which causes reinforcing of re-active thinking.
And in the dream state, whether dreams at night, or conceptual thinking during waking hours .... mental form and mental images are mental form and mental images.
The problematic ones are the conceptual ones that consist of identification with limited form; appearance of limited form doesn't mean we *are* limited form, any more than the content of our sight at this moment says anything about who and what we actually are, now.
Identification with these limited and limiting concepts, as continuously rexperienced and reinforced in the waking (physical) and dreaming (mental) states makes the programming language which is embedded in the long-term memory of the body, which serves as the subconscious operating system for our life.
And it's all based on a mistaken self-conception we were programmed with in early childhood.
Meditation and yoga are the "cure" ... because the inner silence of meditation ... original awareness ... dissolves, or melts the unconscious identification with limited and limiting form which projects unenlightenment from the past, into the present now.
HOWEVER, if we continue to live from conceptual conditioning, not even being aware that it's the primary cause of the pathology of unenlightenment, we are, as they say in Kabbalah: "Sewing with one hand, while undoing the stitch with the other."
Alignment counts for essentially everything.
"When your eye is single, your whole body will be full of light."
Reinforcing conceptual conditioning while meditating and engaging in other yoga practices, is like accelerating with the parking brake on, while driving.
And so, I'm just suggesting:
Maybe release the parking brake (conceptual conditioning) ... you'll drive faster, there will be fewer fits and starts, and the journey home will be much more enjoyable.
[:)]
It seems to me that when you talk about constantly warning people about this very danger repeatedly in your posts, you are referring to the way you say things to the effect of: "don't believe anything that limited mind tells you, because limited mind is the very thing that is preventing you from seeing your true nature as original unconditioned awareness".
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
What concerns me is that someone who is coming from a place of conceptualization (limited mind) may take that concept (your advice and warning), and make it the thought about which thought revolves.
Isn't this true of the vast majority of spiritual teaching, in the world?
It's very difficult not to do this (conceptualize that which can be conceptualize, rather than simply see where it is pointing).
I'm saying "New York City - 10 Miles" ......... if someone says "But what does he mean by 'New'?" Or "Well, I read that ''York' doesn't have anything to do with tall buildings; in fact, it's not even in North America!" .... then maybe that conceptual-self isn't quite ready to visit New York City ..... [8D] ... but that doesn't necessarily mean that others won't be happy and relieved to hear that New York City is only ten miles away ... especially if they've been taught that they might not see it in this lifetime .... or that you have to become a giant gorilla before you can visit ..... [:)]).
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
In other words someone may think that all they need to do is to "figure out" how to stop having un-enlightened thoughts, and then they will "get it". Again, you wouldn't believe the number of people I have come across playing this game, after having encountered neo-advaitist teachings. It’s the biggest tail chasing game imaginable, and can go on for years.
So what I am saying is that putting in the caveat: "Aything you could think about enlightenment, isn't it", isn't necessarily going to prevent people from falling into the trap of "thinking about thinking".
I feel that a stronger, and clearer warning about the necessity of the presence of inner silence is useful here, as the trap of “thinking about thinking”, or “working enlightenment out”, can’t be engaged in when the mind is silent.
I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE.
In fact, that's what I've been trying to emphasize.
It's almost impossible to state it too strongly.
Concepts have nothing to do with enlightenment.
Concepts cannot be present when the mind is silent.
What I am saying is: anyone can help this process along by watching for, and releasing the conceptual .... not by thinking about it .... but by "dropping" or "turning away from" the thought.
Addicts who think about drugs usually use more drugs. Addicts and alcoholics who really wants to be "clean and sober" are willing to follow the proven steps which help preserve sobriety.
Thinking about alcohol and drugs as little as possible helps to move one in the direction of solid and permanent sobriety.
Thinking about anything conceptual as little as possible helps move one in the direction of solid and permanent enlightenment.
Meditation and yoga are the most powerful initial ways to do this.
Once again, I'm just saying: anyone can make the process much easier on themselves by knowing that releasing conceptual identification to form facilitates enlightenment ... and behaving and (not) thinking, accordingly.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
The third danger, as (again) I mentioned above briefly, is the danger of premature kundalini awakening. If someone does manage to drop all unenlightened thoughts (after following your invitation to do so), and has an awakening experience (an experience of the oneness of all things), it can happen either after, or before the awakening of kundalini. If it happens before the awakening of kundalini, then it is a kind of "all bets off" scenario. An awakening experience can be (as I'm sure you know) an extremely powerful experience and can last anything from hours or days, to weeks or months. The pull on kundalini can be very strong and so there is no way of gauging the speed of kundalini awakening that may follow, or, for that matter, the degree of readiness of the person involved.
I'm not so sure this is correct.
Reason being: I don't see myself as saying anything different than what Adyashanti, Byron Katie or Eckhart Tolle have said ... and, as far as I know, they haven't precipitated premature kundalini awakenings in anyone.
If you see me as saying anything that is substantially different than what they teach (with allowance for phrasing, of course) .... please let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
You say that you are not advising anyone to fly who does not have the wings to fly with. What I hear you saying, repeatedly is this: "enlightenment is real; it's wonderful, in a normal and real way; you can actually have it, too; all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ". I don’t hear any mention of who may be ready to follow this advice safely, and who may not in terms of kundalini.
Once again, I'm saying that by way of encouragement.
Yogani has said the same thing, using slightly different words.
So has every other spiritual teacher who is popular in this forum (Byron Katie, Adyashanti, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, etc.).
I don't recall any, with the possible exception of Yogani, adding in any caveats at all ... and certainly not to the degree you're indicating is needed.
I actually see the "issue", if it can be called such, exactly the inverse of what you're concerned about (with this third concern you've raised).
The issue isn't that people will "overload" .... it's that they'll attempt to drop conceptual ideas, and/or be confused about exactly what constitutes conceptual ... and may feel that there is something wrong, per their inability to simply drop attachment to conceptual conditioning.
To anyone who experiences this, or is concerned about it, I would say:
Practice AYP.
In a previous post, I explained how inner silence gives way to samadhi, which gives way to samadhi in daily life, which gives way to permanent identity shift.
Each of those steps represents an order-of-magnitude increase in the experiencing of original awareness, and/or of its influence.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
The thing about saying things like: “enlightenment is wonderful, all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ...”, is that most people simply don't “get it”. In fact, in my experience the vast majority of people don't get it. If most people did get it, all of Yogani's writings would have been a waste of time. It would simply have been enough for him to have written: "Let go of all of your illusory thoughts about reality, and see that we are and have always been, one."
I'm pretty sure I've never said *all* you have to do.
I've said that dropping ideas represents a potentially major benefit, in terms of decreasing one's time to experiencing enlightenment .... in conjunction with, and on top of, proven practices (including inquiry), from the world's proven yogic and mystical traditions.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
What we really need to be asking here is: "What is the best way to bring someone to the point where they are able to see through the illusory nature of the self, and live as unbound awareness, forever free?" In my opinion, and experience, it has always been, spiritual practices. I am sure you would agree, so what I am saying is that very often I don't feel that comes across well through the way you write, and very often, something quite other comes across. I am also saying that the cautionary advice you give, even when it is there, could well be insufficient given the potential problems involved.
I hope that helps to clarify my concerns.
Christi
I do agree.
And I hope you are now clear, at least, on what I'm actually saying.
If I haven't made myself quite clear, I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
And, I hope that with that clarification, you may see that I'm not actually saying anything differently than anyone else who is expressing the actuality of enlightenment (i.e. Tolle, Kate, Yogani, Adya, etc.) ... though if this dialog has actually helped anyone to be more clear than they already were on what I am saying, it is worthwhile, of course.
And finally: the main point of my statements in this thread is simply to convey:
Enlightenment is real, and you can experience it (said to anyone reading).
It's not a fantasy; it doesn't involve many of the super-human powers that some people dream it does ... and consistent meditation and yoga .... which always includes dissolution of the conceptual dream (which facilitates, enables and defines enlightenment and liberation) at every level of consciousness, including the physical/neurochemical ... and this usually (always, as far as I know) takes both practices, and time ... and leads to enlightenment.
And it's worth whatever it takes to get here.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Why do you conceive of definitions different than your current definition as "lesser"?
Because there are missing pieces.
If you look at Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, the Sutra of focusing on the heart is just one small piece. It is lesser than the whole..
quote:
III. The Extraordinary Powers
Concentration locks consciousness on a single area.In meditative absorption, the entire perceptual flow is aligned with that object.When only the essential nature of the object shines forth, as if formless, integration has arisen.Concentration, meditative absorption, and integration regarding a single object comprise the perfect discipline of consciousness.Once the perfect discipline of consciousness is mastered, wisdom dawns.Perfect discipline is mastered in stages.These three components - concentration, absorption, and integration - are more interiorized than the preceding five.
Even these three are external to integration that bears no seeds.The transformation toward total stillness occurs as new latent impressions fostering cessation arise to prevent the activation of distractive, stored ones, and moments of stillness begin to permeate consciousness.These latent impressions help consciousness flow from one tranquil moment to the next.Consciousness is transformed toward integration as distractions dwindle, and focus arises.In other words, consciousness is transformed toward focus as continuity develops between arising and subsiding perceptions.Consciousness evolves along the same three lines - form, timespan, and condition - as the elements and the senses.
The substrate is unchanged, whether before, during, or after it takes a given form.
These transformations appear to unfold the way they do because consciousness is a succession of distinct patterns.
Observing these three axes of change - form, timespan, and condition - with perfect discipline yields insight into the past and future.
Word, meaning, and perception tend to get lumped together, each confused with the others; focusing on the distinctions between them with perfect discipline yields insight into the language of all beings.
Directly observing latent impressions with perfect discipline yields insight into previous births.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the perceptions of another yields insight into that person’s consciousness.
But not insight regarding the object of those perceptions, since the object itself is not actually present in that person’s consciousness.
When the body’s form is observed with perfect discipline, it becomes invisible: the eye is disengaged from incoming light, and the power to perceive is suspended.
Likewise, through perfect discipline other percepts - sound, smell, taste, touch - can be made to disappear.
The effects of action may be immediate or slow in coming; observing one’s actions with perfect discipline, or studying omens, yields insight into death.
Focusing with perfect discipline on friendliness, compassion, delight, and equanimity, one is imbued with their energies.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the powers of an elephant, or other entities, one acquires those powers.
Being absorbed in the play of the mind’s luminosity yields insight about the subtle, hidden, and distant.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the sun yields insight about the universe.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the moon yields insight about the stars’ positions.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the polestar yields insight about their movements.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the navel energy center yields insight about the organization of the body.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the pit of the throat eradicates hunger and thirst.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the ‘tortoise channel’, one cultivates steadiness.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the light in the crown of the head, one acquires the perspective of the perfected ones.
Or, all these accomplishments may be realized in a flash of spontaneous illumination.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the heart, one understands the nature of consciousness.
Experience consists of perceptions in which the luminous aspect of the phenomenal world is mistaken for absolutely pure awareness. Focusing with perfect discipline on the different properties of each yields insight into the nature of pure awareness.
Following this insight, the senses - hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting, smelling - may suddenly be enhanced.
These sensory gifts may feel like attainments, but they distract one from integration.
By relaxing one’s attachment to the body, and becoming profoundly sensitive to its currents, consciousness can enter another’s body.
By mastering the flow of energy in the head and neck, one can walk through water, mud, thorns, and other obstacles without touching down, but rather floating over them.
By mastering the flow of energy through the solar plexus, one becomes radiant.
By focusing with perfect discipline on the way sound travels through the ether, one acquires divine hearing.
By focusing with perfect discipline on the body’s relationship to the ether, and developing coalesced contemplation on the lightness of cotton, one can travel through space.
When consciousness completely disengages from externals - the ‘great disembodiment’ - then the veil lifts from the mind’s luminosity.
By observing the aspects of matter - gross, subtle, intrinsic, relational, purposive - with perfect discipline, one masters the elements.
Then extraordinary faculties appear, including the power to shrink to the size of an atom, as the body attains perfection, transcending physical law.
This perfection includes beauty, grace, strength, and the durability of a diamond.
By observing the various aspects of the sense organs - their processes of perception, intrinsic natures, identification as self, interconnectedness, purposes - with perfect discipline, one masters them.
Then, free from the constraints of their organs, the senses perceive with the quickness of the mind, no longer in the sway of the phenomenal world.
Once one just sees the distinction between pure awareness and the luminous aspect of the phenomenal world, all conditions are known and mastered.
When one is unattached even to this omniscience and mastery, the seeds of suffering wither, and pure awareness knows it stands alone.
Even if the exalted beckon, one must avoid attachment and pride, or suffering will recur.
Focusing with perfect discipline on the succession of moments in time yields insight born of discrimination.
This insight allows one to tell things apart which, through similarities of origin, feature, or position, had seemed continuous.
In this way, discriminative insight deconstructs all of the phenomenal world’s objects and conditions, setting them apart from pure awareness.
Once the luminosity and transparency of consciousness have become as distilled as pure awareness, they can reflect the freedom of awareness back to itself.
You said:
quote:
Part of the experiencing of this awareness is a shifting in identity from a limited idea of self, to an unlimited experiencing of, and identification with, the full field of awareness.
Many, including myself, are comfortable calling this "enlightenment".
Ok. Let's create a new term. Let's call it enGoddenment. :)
quote:
I've never known, or heard of any enlightened teacher (or, one who is widely recognized as such, using traditional definitions of the term .... Ramana Maharshi, Swami Lakshmanjoo, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Adyashanti, Yogani, etc.) who would fit your definition of enlightenment, either.
I'm so happy you didn't include Jesus in there.. :)
quote:
However, there are definitions of enlightenment given in widely-respected, centuries-old texts (the Shiva Sutras, the Yoga Spandakarika, the Vijnanabhairava Tantra, the Yoga Sutras, etc.), as well as some more modern compilations and teachings (I Am That by Nisargadatta Maharaj, the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, Emptiness Dancing by Adyashanti, the AYP Lessons and AYP Enlightenment Series of books by Yogani) which do match, either exactly, or very closely .... the experiencing of enlightenment being described in this thread.
You know, there is an old saying: "Those that can, do, Those that can't, teach". I have read many stories about buddhists who attained the rainbow body and evaporated into light, leaving no trace behind (except memories of those they left behind). And who else died and took his body with him?
quote:
Enlightenment isn't about the word "enlightenment"; it's about the reality to which the word points.
And so, if you wish to define enlightenment as you do, that's fine ... but I'm not so sure you'll ever find anyone who matches it.
How about Jesus?
"Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all things will be added onto you". Have you ever wondered what "all things" might be?
Have you ever read "Autobiography of a Yogi" or "The Essence of the Bhagavad Gita"?
quote:
There are stories/rumors of those with amazing physical and energetic "siddhis" ... superpowers, if you will.
The Yoga Sutras and the Shiva Sutras both list them under "obstructions", and "obstacles" to realization and enlightenment; not as qualities of enlightenment.
Why?
Because even if one relaxes mind enough to be able to do some of the things you suggest, the manifestation of "actual super powers" brings limited mind roaring back into the picture -- either in the experiencing of the one with the powers (this is quite likely, in fact; it's only limited mind who would seek such powers, in the first place), or in the experiencing of those who experience the powers demonstrated.
I agree wholeheartedly. While you are climbing the ladder, there is no use for distractions. But once you arrive at the top, you don't need the ladder anymore.. Once you arrive at the top, you don't need advice either..
quote:
Adyashanti has a great line about omniscience, where he says (basically; I'm paraphrasing just a little ... I heard this live at a satsang, years ago) ...
"People think that when you're enlightened, you know everything. Actually, the opposite is true; I know so much less than I did before I was enlightened, it's not even funny!"
Yes, this definately falls short of enGoddenment. When I read that I think to myself "let's redefine enlightenment as something that is easily attainable so more people will believe that it is within their grasp."
I saw a youtube video the other day about Kundalini from this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OAKYLLNwB4
In there Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath states that there are seven levels of kundalini. The first level is where most people are at. The second level is the level of geniuses like Einstein. He says the fifth level is where your body becomes a vessel of light.
Now, this may or may not be true, but I will be researching more about the levels of kundalini in the future. However, there is the component of intelligence in there that Adyashanti, by his statement, has conveniently bypassed thus mitigating the requirement.
quote:
There are three basic tiers to consciousness; knowledge is only applicable in the first two (physical and mental), and not the third (spiritual; nirvikalpa; turiya, etc.).
This to me is an oversimplification of the levels of consciousness, especially after seeing this link:
http://www.mudrashram.com/GCC2.html
Have you realized all of these levels of consciousness? Do you have that kind of energy? (I'm not goading you on here, I'm simply asking. I have had kundalini surges that have blown open the top of my head revealing what looked like infinite planes of existence and it only lasted a short while but I couldn't handle it. Mentally, I had to reject it. It was too much for my little brain. I know I'm living in a dream world right now and that is still fine with me, but I do know now that I am deceiving myself. )
quote:
Thoughtless (knowledge-less) awareness is taught as being the highest condition of consciousness in every mystical and yogic system.
This is a generalization. Neither you nor I have read or understood "every mystical and yogic system". But I'm sure one day we will. :)
My definition of enlightement (enGoddenment) is present in the world today and has existed for millenia. It is the total summation of all teachings and miraculous events throughout history. It is a confirmation that God does exist and that we are part of that, and that God is expressing itself through us.
My definition of enlightenment is what I 'know' to be true after meeting Jesus. When I met Jesus, I realized that I am but a tiny speck of light and that Jesus has the infinite power and intelligence to create infinite universes. It was so overwhelming, I was petrified, frozen, couldn't move, shocked, awed, moved beyond belief. Once you have that kind of realization you have something to measure other beings by.
You see, throughout history, God has shown us bits and pieces of him/herself because the full body showing would literally blow us apart. We would fry like mosquitos on a bonfire. So gradualy, little by little, we catch glimpses of God, just enough to paint a larger picture. Each religion/teaching/yoga has their own version of that glimpse. If you put them all together, you start to get a much larger picture.
I agree! It's just words. Just thoughts. You don't really exist, I don't really exist, nor do these wonderful tools that let us communicate with other non-beings scattered throughout the world.
Thanks again for the communications, I appreciate your time and effort.
:)
TI
Oh, I found out what that squashed triangle of light was. It hit me last night. I did not sleep at all last night! My whole inside of my head became a bright mixture of lights. It was like a light show behind my eyes in my hollow head. At one point I thought to myself, "gotta die sooner or later, might as well be now". I had one short dream about bears and then resumed the throbbing light show, intense tinitus(nada?), and feeling like someone had cut my head off. I now attribute this to having done spinal breathing while adding the following items two days before: put a smile on my face to seal ida and pingala and added "AUM" to the tracing of attention up and down the spine. Won't be doing that again anytime soon.. :)
-
quote:
Originally posted by YogaIsLife
This is just to say that the debate on what is enlightenemnt is frutiless and pointless. Once you get whatever you think you want, if it is at all worth it, you wouldn't care a tiny little bit what you call it, it is beyond any names or concepts or definitions. It is complete on its own. And the important thing is to experience it, if that is what you want and need.
My 2 cents...
All the very best!
Hi YIL,
Agreed 100%.
I've simply been offering encouragement regarding the full benefits of yoga practices: the living experience of the fullness of original, liberated awareness.
I happen to call it enlightenment, which is understandably, a very "charged" word.
Becoming aware of this (that many people find it so "charged") causes me to be somewhat less likely to use that term moving forward.
It's not at all about what you call it.
If I wanted to go all the way to other end of the "succinct-ity" spectrum (from my usual posts), I might simply say:
AYP Works.
Everything Yogani says in the lessons is true.
I came in off the (virtual) street just a few years ago, and my living experience is now far beyond anything Yogani indicates is possible, in the AYP Lessons and books.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Jesus didn't become Christ in a day, it took him years (and possibly lifetimes) of spiritual practices and a gradual unfoldment and expansion on both a conscious and energetic level.
But one day, he became Christ.. :) Maybe he had a little help from his friends.. :)
quote:
What we could say, is that unity consciousness (which Kirtanman and Wayne Wirs are describing) is an initial stage of enlightenment, and that there are further stages beyond that. I referred to this a while ago in another thread as the stages of spiritual unfoldment beyond the realization of advaita.
I agree. However, in advaita the enlightenment part seems to be stuck in the human part. Why didn't Nisargadatta quit smoking? Ken Wilber (not that I give him any more license to write truth than anyone else) does say that the problem with Eckhart Tolle's presence or the 'Now' is that after experiencing it, it is interpreted according the vertical level of the dimension of consciousness that the person/group/religion is at. This kind of rung true for me, since all experience is 'remembered' and 'recalled' through the conditioned/veiled mind.
quote:
Ultimately, it is really just a question of agreeing on language, or on agreeing to disagree on language but still understanding what the other person is talking about. [:)]
Christi
Sometimes I think you are very wise. :)
:)
TI
-
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
We all have an innate ability to recognize the truth of "the Absolute" (insert whatever word is meaningful for you) prior to the guessing mind getting involved. If the words of a given individual ring true for you and you feel they are expanding then that is the value right then and there.
Hi Anthem :)
I feel that I understand what you are saying.
I do not believe in the sympathetic resonation theory, because, after the initial perception, the mind takes over and the mind is that which resonates. The absolute/God/witness does not resonate. It is still. (Maybe it really isn't but that is what I believe at this time). :)
If anybody tells me "if it resonates true for you then it must be so" is probably right, however, to a thief, a tale of stolen treasure will resonate with another thief and between the two of them, the resonation will even grow stronger. Also, nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. Or, have you ever heard the story about "Good Luck Bad Luck, Too soon to tell?
quote:
As the story goes, there was once a farmer and his only son in the days just before the Civil War. Having only one horse, the farmer and son worked long hard days, sun up to sun down, just to get by, with nothing left to spare.
One day as the father and son plowed the fields, their horse got spooked and ran off. The son was devastated; “What bad luck, now what will we do?”
The father replied; “Good luck, bad luck, too soon to tell.”
The father and son continued to work the farm. Then one day their horse comes running back over the hill with 6 other horses. The son exclaimed, “What great luck, now we have all the horses we’ll ever need!”
To which the farmer replied; “Good luck, bad luck, too soon to tell.”
The next day as the farmer and son were working with the horses, one particulary difficult horse threw the son off his back and broke his leg. The son cried: “Oh father, I am so sorry, now you have to work the farm all by yourself. What bad luck!”
Once again the father replied: “Good luck, bad luck, too soon to tell.”
Several days later the Civil War broke out and all the able bodied young men were sent off to war. The farmer’s son, having a broken leg, was forced to stay at home.
After the leg had healed, the father had the only farm around with a son to help and seven horses to boot. They worked the farm and prospered.
Good luck, bad luck. It’s too soon to tell.
So, nothing is good or bad, it is too soon to tell, and will always be too soon to tell. In my mind anyway..
Thanks for your comments.
:)
TI
-
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
Enlightenment is, so they say, beyond 'point of view'.
Discussing our points of view about no-point-of-view, as we do, is a fine paradox.
But try as we might, we can't stop until it stops.
chinna
Hi chinna :)
Words of wisdom! :)
Very Zen.
I look forward to those stops.
:)
TI
-
quote:
Originally posted by machart
I enjoyed your post YIL!
Thanks Machart. I am glad it was of some use to someone [:)]
It was from the heart.
-
Hi TI,
quote:
But one day, he became Christ.. :) Maybe he had a little help from his friends.. :)
I think he did have a little help from his friends, yes. And gave a lot of help to his friends, and everyone else for that matter.
It reminds me of a conversation which took place between the Buddha and Ananda, his main companion. Ananda said to the Buddha one day: "You know, sometimes I think that spiritual friendships are half of what the spiritual life is all about." And the Buddha replied: "No Ananda, spiritual friendships are the whole of what the spiritual life is all about".
As Nisargadatta once said: "in reality, nobody else exists". Another of those divine paradoxes. [:)]
All in the Self, the Self in all.
quote:
Sometimes I think you are very wise. :)
Don't be fooled. [:D]
Christi
-
Hi Kirtanman, :)
Here are some points of interest..
Here is an excerpt from "The Essence Of The Bhagavad Gita" explained by Paramhansa Yogananda:
quote:
In ordinary, unenlightened human beings, the ego is centered in the medulla oblongata. The yogi looks forward, as it were, from that point to the Kutastha, or the "Christ Center" between the two eyebrows. The more he concentrates on that point, the more his consciousness becomes identified with it - to the point where his center of self-awareness shifts from ego to superconsciousness. Most people, in whatever they do, radiate energy outward from the medulla oblongata at the back of the head - the seat of the ego in the body. An enlightened master, by contrast, radiates energy outward from his transformed self awareness, which is centered in the Kutastha at the point between the eyebrows. This still is the ego, which even the enlightened man needs in order to keep his body functioning. The divine Self, as differentiated from the enlightened ego, has its center in the heart.
So we see here that the usage of the term 'enlightened' is merely an adjective, and it is not the final destination. The other interesting point is that which I've bolded. That shift from ego to superconsciousness, is that the shift that Adyashanti talks about?
About siddhis (from that same book):
quote:
"These powers are helpful in that they can assure the yogi that his attainments are not merely imaginary. They can also be dangerous, however, in posing a temptation to the ego.
Here is some indication of the step along the path of God-realization (same book):
quote:
The yogi, in deep, inner communion with AUM after raising his consciousness at least to the bishuddha (cervical), finds his awareness expanding - first to the whole body, then outward to encompass all space. This state is described also as AUM samadhi. Next, he perceives the Kutastha Chaitanya, or Christ consciousness, behind the AUM vibration in the body. Gradually he expands that consciousness to encompass Christ consciousness in all manifested existence.
I once asked my Guru, "What point must one have reached to be rightly considered a master?"
He replied, "One must have attained Christ consciousness".
Is the expansion of awareness that encompasses all space being refered to here the realization of Oneness?
In the chapter called "The Field of Battle", it says this:
quote:
(13:30) When (the yogi) sees all beings as contained in the One, having expanded his consciousness (and sympathy) to include all living beings, he merges into the Brahman.
Throughout the Bhagavad Gita, it defines the final goal as "God realization", and that is 'achieving divine perfection':
quote:
Salvation is of two kinds: final liberation from all karma and union with God; and freedom from earthly karma, giving the possibility of living from then on in high astral regions, from which one can work out his astral and causal karma until he reaches final liberation. Salvation from the need for further imprisonment on this material plane is in itself a great blessing, and can be won even without (yet) achieving divine perfection.
And finally, this simple definition of "enlightenment":
quote:
Paramhansa Yogananda explained that the path of spiritual ascent is by awakening the Kundalini. "Fire" means life energy; the fire of yagya, symbolizing the divine energy into which one offers his ego for purification and for ultimate consumption.
"Light" stands for what Jesus Christ, in an equally esoteric passage in the New Testament of the Bible, described as "the light of the body": the spiritual eye, beheld in the forehead.
"Daytime" signifies that period of time when the yogi is divinely awake in the superconsciousness. The "sun" of the spiritual eye shines upon him, bringing what is described in all mystical traditions as enlightnment.
Throughout the Bhagavad Gita, there is much emphasis on the point between the eyebrows (sambhavi). There is even mention of a "baby kriya" practice of directing the breath to that point:
quote:
There is another simple technique, helpful to practice as a preliminary exercise: With mental detachment, watch the breath flowing naturally in the nostrils. A mantra should be uttered with the breathing process: "Hong" as the breath flows in (allowing the flow to occur naturally); and "Sau" as it flows out. Gradually transfer your focus of attention from the feeling of breath in the nostrils to the point, higher up the nose, where it enters the head. This, of course, is also the point midway between the eyebrows.
My Guru told me also to practice, after some time, feeling the energy flowing up and down the spine with the incoming and outgoing breaths - not to control the flow, but to feel it as the subtle cause of the physical breath. This technique is not Kriya Yoga, but my Guru sometimes referred to it as the "baby Kriya".
Kirtanman, I would be very interested to hear, in your words, your experience of realization. I know you attribute it to the AYP lessons, but I feel that it could also be a cumulative response to your previous practices as well. What exactly happened to you? What do you attribute your awakening to? Do you feel like you've arrived? Is your kundalini active?
:)
TI
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Hi Christi,
Thanks very much for staying with this dialog; you've made some very important points in this post that I very much appreciate.
Likewise. [8D]
quote:
Thanks, Christi. I can see how someone could potentially interpret that comment in that way ... and that is absolutely not what I am intending to convey.
It's a good job I brought it up then. [:)]
quote:
...
I hope this clears up what I'm saying.
Absolutely, that's a lot clearer, thanks.
quote:
Technically, this may be true ... but I'm not so sure that it's true generally. If you can give any examples of where you feel I'm stating things conceptually, please let me know.
My general intent is always to be as unambiguous as possible.
The point I was making is that all statements are conceptual, because they are not the thing that they describe. This is why advaita teaching can be so problematic, because it revolves so heavily around quite subtle conceptual statements.
quote:
I'm not so sure this is correct.
Reason being: I don't see myself as saying anything different than what Adyashanti, Byron Katie or Eckhart Tolle have said ... and, as far as I know, they haven't precipitated premature kundalini awakenings in anyone.
If I remember rightly we had a case come up here in the forum a while back of someone who had been on a retreat with Adyashanti and was going through major kundalini difficulties as a result.
Over the last 5 years I have been trying to help a friend who has been going through a major premature kundalini awakening. She had an awakening experience of the kind that Adyashanti would call the "non-abiding" variety, after hearing people talk about the oneness of all things. The experience awakened her kundalini before she was ready and now she is living in a state of pretty much constant pain with all the usual kundalini symptoms.
I am not saying that this is a common experience with advaitic practice, but it is a danger that we should be aware of. My experience is that nearly always, advaita teachers don't have any strategy in place for dealing with this scenario, and they just hope that the person will be all right, and will come through the awakening in one piece. It's not the most sophisticated of approaches, and really, I think we can do a lot better these days. In the case of the person who attended the retreat with Adyashanti, if I remember rightly, Yogani was involved in the clean up process.
In the case of my friend, I try my best to help her. In her case it is not easy because she is heavily into the whole advaita "thing". When I suggest to her that she could cut down on her high-end self-inquiry practices and take up some grounding practices until the intense headaches go away she is unimpressed. The reasoning is simple: trying to avoid pain is something that "thinking mind" would want to do. Thinking mind tries to avoid pain and receive pleasure. Undifferentiated awareness is impartial with regards to pain and pleasure. So my advice for her to make some adjustments in her life in order to calm the flames of kundalini is, in effect me telling her to give in to the desires of "thinking mind". [:)]
Her advaita teacher, on the other hand, would tell her to be present with the pain, and accept that it is her reality "right now", whilst noticing that she is not the pain but is undifferentiated awareness which is always already free.
So she continues to live in constant pain and put up with the headaches!
I am explaining this to give you an idea of the subtle mess that people can get into with advaitist ideas. On top of this, if anyone criticises anything that her advaita teachers say, it is because they are operating from "thinking mind", just as you suggested to TI above with regards to his critisism of Adyashanti. So the teachers become "beyond criticism".
It can be a dangerous game, if we are not really clear at every stage what is involved and what the pitfalls are. This is why I think Yogani has done such a good job in his self-inquiry book in outlining the difference between relational and non-relational self-inquiry. It is a major step forward in the whole process of integrating advaitic teachings into the process of awakening.
It may sound like I am saying that advaita is pretty much a waste of time, as I have been outlining many of the dangers in this thread. I am not saying that at all. In fact, I see it as a beautiful teaching and tradition, and, apart from pure bhakti, it is probably my favourite practice.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
You say that you are not advising anyone to fly who does not have the wings to fly with. What I hear you saying, repeatedly is this: "enlightenment is real; it's wonderful, in a normal and real way; you can actually have it, too; all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ". I don’t hear any mention of who may be ready to follow this advice safely, and who may not in terms of kundalini.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, I'm saying that by way of encouragement.
Yogani has said the same thing, using slightly different words.
So has every other spiritual teacher who is popular in this forum (Byron Katie, Adyashanti, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, etc.).
I don't recall any, with the possible exception of Yogani, adding in any caveats at all ... and certainly not to the degree you're indicating is needed.
Nearly all the caveats I've suggested are covered by Yogani in the self-inquiry book. The only one he didn't cover there is the danger of direct self-inquiry leading to a premature kundalini awakening. But he has said that when self-inquiry is non-relational, it can lead to headaches, confusion and the mind playing games with the mind.
All the teachers you mention (with the exception of Byron Katie) are advaita teachers, so it is not that surprising that they are passionate about advaita. I was once at a satsang with Amma, when someone asked her if she could talk a bit about advaitic philosophy. In front of about 1000 people she said: "I don't like to talk about advaita, as so many people can so easily get confused with it". So that's the caveat that Amma puts on advaita teachings! A lot more severe than either Yogani, or myself.
I believe that this is the traditional approach to advaita in yogic teaching. Normally a teacher would teach a student spiritual practices. Then, when the teacher believes that a student is ready, in terms of both purification of the body and the level of inner silence (samadhi) present, they would introduce non-dual (advaitic) teachings. In India it is very uncommon to find a teacher that offers advaitic teachings to anyone and everyone who comes along. There are tens of thousands of spiritual teachers in India and I would struggle to think of a handfull who offer pure advaitic teachings without any warnings to anyone who happens to drop in.
quote:
The issue isn't that people will "overload" .... it's that they'll attempt to drop conceptual ideas, and/or be confused about exactly what constitutes conceptual ... and may feel that there is something wrong, per their inability to simply drop attachment to conceptual conditioning.
Absolutely. And another reason to emphasize the importance of practice as a tool for the realization of the true nature of reality. With the emphasis on spiritual practice, the realization of advaita is certain. With the emphasis on advaita, its realization is less certain. This is what I have been trying to say.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman:
I'm pretty sure I've never said *all* you have to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman:
.... all we're saying is: enlightenment is real; it's wonderful, in a normal and real way; you can actually have it, too; all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ... and everything else.
[:D]
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
quote:
I've said that dropping ideas represents a potentially major benefit, in terms of decreasing one's time to experiencing enlightenment .... in conjunction with, and on top of, proven practices (including inquiry), from the world's proven yogic and mystical traditions.
Yes, to be fair, you do also say that, which I am sure is a great help to many.
quote:
And I hope you are now clear, at least, on what I'm actually saying.
A lot clearer. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Christi
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
The point I was making is that all statements are conceptual, because they are not the thing that they describe. This is why advaita teaching can be so problematic, because it revolves so heavily around quite subtle conceptual statements.
Ah, "got it" (I'm familiar with this concept ... [8D]) .. it's one of the foundational teachings of Kashmir Shaivism .... "the paths of the denoted {objects} and denoted meanings {words} ... and how the two intextricably interpenetrate (much like energy and matter) ... thus creating the dynamic of unenlightenment (the confusing of the conceptual with actuality).
Or, as A Course In Miracles puts it, both succinctly and poignantly:
"Words are but symbols of symbols, and thus, twice removed from reality."
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
I'm not so sure this is correct.
Reason being: I don't see myself as saying anything different than what Adyashanti, Byron Katie or Eckhart Tolle have said ... and, as far as I know, they haven't precipitated premature kundalini awakenings in anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
If I remember rightly we had a case come up here in the forum a while back of someone who had been on a retreat with Adyashanti and was going through major kundalini difficulties as a result.
Over the last 5 years I have been trying to help a friend who has been going through a major premature kundalini awakening. She had an awakening experience of the kind that Adyashanti would call the "non-abiding" variety, after hearing people talk about the oneness of all things. The experience awakened her kundalini before she was ready and now she is living in a state of pretty much constant pain with all the usual kundalini symptoms.
**
It may sound like I am saying that advaita is pretty much a waste of time, as I have been outlining many of the dangers in this thread. I am not saying that at all. In fact, I see it as a beautiful teaching and tradition, and, apart from pure bhakti, it is probably my favourite practice.
No problem; understood on all levels ... and in general, agreed.
In fact, I recall Adya saying, when someone asked him why he didn't just "give awakening" ("shaktipat" people into full awakening, as some gurus do, or claim to do).
Adya responded:
"I used to; when I first started teaching. I felt like: "If I can just give someone the experience of awakening .... they'll be all set. After I nearly sent a few people to the funny farm ... and I'm not kidding .... we're talking emergency room visits, in one or two cases ... I stopped doing that, needless to say. Now, I just tell it like it is ... and let people take what they can."
(Which, I understand, Christi, may be a bit at odds with what you were saying. However, I'm conveying what I wrote above, in the spirit of agreement; I hadn't recalled Adya saying this, until now ... and it makes the point that whether via direct energy, or intense inquiry, or whatever the method might be ..... too much, too soon .... can create more problems than solutions, especially in the near-term ... and Adya recognizes that, as well.)
And it also speak to the point: the only reason a teacher like Adya operates that way, is as much as he has the enlightenment and the wisdom to help many people (and has, including me) ..... there's likely no single teacher or approach that has it all "down" ... which is why the work of AYP is really so important.
We're the only "central repository"" for yogic/spiritual information, that's also "tradition independent", that also has input from a wide variety of sources and resources ... and also (quite possibly most importantly) understands the "energy management" side of kundalini/awakening ... both the importance of it, and how to go about it.
I continue to be amazed at the power, importance and efficacy of the self-pacing "limb" of AYP.
[:)]
In fact, I'll even go as far as to say that enlightenment/significant realization very likely can occur much sooner, because of it .... without it, the upheavals could cause people to be "circling in sadhana" as they do in other systems.
It's almost like the "gunas writ large" in yogic systems:
Some systems are Tamasic (full of inertia) ... they can work, and people do become enlightened, but it takes a loooong time, and progress is slow.
Some systems are Rajasic (full of acceleration) ... both Zen and Advaita can be like this (and both having their roots in non-dual tantric systems, this makes sense).
And a very few are Sattvic (balanced); I see AYP as being like this; Kashmir Shaivism, also.
AYP has its self-pacing, and the balance of group input.
Kashmir Shaivism has the three primary divisions of consciousness (loosely: spirit/awareness, mind, body) ... and yogic practices which are applicable to each level.
The foundation is Anavopaya (Individual Means), and focuses on body practices: pranayama, meditation, mudras, bandhas, tantric sexual practices, chanting .... basically, anything body-related (this is also known as Kriya ... which simply means "action" in Sanskrit, in Kashmir Shaivism, and in other systems).
The next level up is Shaktopaya ... the Empowered Means ... the means of mind; of inquiry. Texts like the Spandakarika and the Vijanabhairava Tantra expand upon the philosophy of the Shiva Sutras with the yogic practices which complement each of the Shiva Sutras' philosophical levels.
The level after that ... the level of supernal/thought-free awareness ... Shambhavopaya (Divine Means) ... is the level of sustaining and living from thought-free awareness as much as possible (and has related practices offered in the Shiva Sutras and its commentaries, and in certain other texts such as the Pratyabhijnahrdayam).
The final level is Anopaya .... "no means" .... post-enlightenment, when practices *as* practices are no longer needed (there's nothing to gain for oneself; the path of yoga is complete ... the Yoga Sutras, and most advaitic texts have their analog to this, as well ... a "completion level").
The reason for going into all that, is:
As both AYP and Kashmir Shaivism demonstrate ... just because non-duality is ultimately part of a system, doesn't mean the system can't be balanced.
Conversely, if a system doesn't include non-duality, it can't be balanced, either.
And so ... the balanced approach would seem to be:
Offer non-dual, mixed (non-dual/dual, both) and dual (initial body-based practices) information and practices, and let people find their own levels, comfortably.
That's literally the way the Shiva Sutras is structured:
Section I is Divine Means (Highest)
Section II is Empowered Means (Middle)
Section III is Individual Means (Lowest)
Students/practitioners are instructed to start at the beginning (1.1 Caitanyamatma - Self is Liberated Awareness) .... and basically read/study/work with their teacher ... until they find the level they're comfortably at, currently.
The thinking here, unlike with the majority of yogic systems, is that not everyone needs to start with the most basic body-practices, if intuition and/or teacher and/or common sense, say otherwise ... and that those who are "ripe" can have a shorter sadhana.
AYP basically does the same thing ... just starting from the opposite end ... but says: start at the beginning .... and settle in where you recognize you're ready to settle in .... and proceed lesson by lesson, from that point.
It seems to me that AYP and the Shiva Sutras are good examples of "information alone" not being harmful, and good examples of how to integrate both information and practices in ways that are unlikely to precipitate major kundalini-upheavals.
There may always be someone who experiences upheaval anyway, and that's fine, too .... but I agree fully: we're here to do what we can to convey the right encouragement *and* the right cautions, along with the right general information, practices and support .... so that in general, people are likely to experience as rapid and trouble-free a sojourn to awareness of yoga//enlightenment, in their own experiencing.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
You say that you are not advising anyone to fly who does not have the wings to fly with. What I hear you saying, repeatedly is this: "enlightenment is real; it's wonderful, in a normal and real way; you can actually have it, too; all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ". I don’t hear any mention of who may be ready to follow this advice safely, and who may not in terms of kundalini.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Once again, I'm saying that by way of encouragement.
Yogani has said the same thing, using slightly different words.
So has every other spiritual teacher who is popular in this forum (Byron Katie, Adyashanti, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, etc.).
I don't recall any, with the possible exception of Yogani, adding in any caveats at all ... and certainly not to the degree you're indicating is needed.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Nearly all the caveats I've suggested are covered by Yogani in the self-inquiry book. The only one he didn't cover there is the danger of direct self-inquiry leading to a premature kundalini awakening. But he has said that when self-inquiry is non-relational, it can lead to headaches, confusion and the mind playing games with the mind.
All the teachers you mention (with the exception of Byron Katie) are advaita teachers, so it is not that surprising that they are passionate about advaita. I was once at a satsang with Amma, when someone asked her if she could talk a bit about advaitic philosophy. In front of about 1000 people she said: "I don't like to talk about advaita, as so many people can so easily get confused with it". So that's the caveat that Amma puts on advaita teachings! A lot more severe than either Yogani, or myself.
I believe that this is the traditional approach to advaita in yogic teaching. Normally a teacher would teach a student spiritual practices. Then, when the teacher believes that a student is ready, in terms of both purification of the body and the level of inner silence (samadhi) present, they would introduce non-dual (advaitic) teachings. In India it is very uncommon to find a teacher that offers advaitic teachings to anyone and everyone who comes along. There are tens of thousands of spiritual teachers in India and I would struggle to think of a handfull who offer pure advaitic teachings without any warnings to anyone who happens to drop in.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
The issue isn't that people will "overload" .... it's that they'll attempt to drop conceptual ideas, and/or be confused about exactly what constitutes conceptual ... and may feel that there is something wrong, per their inability to simply drop attachment to conceptual conditioning.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Absolutely. And another reason to emphasize the importance of practice as a tool for the realization of the true nature of reality. With the emphasis on spiritual practice, the realization of advaita is certain. With the emphasis on advaita, its realization is less certain. This is what I have been trying to say.
Very nicely put (and important, hence my "bolding" of those two sentences).
I agree wholeheartedly (with the caveat that it's never 100%, either way .... but "close enough to", to emphasize the importance of those words, I'd say).
It was never my intention to convey and "advaita-only" spin; it was never my intention to do anything, other than echo Wayne Wir's words, and say: "Yes, it is possible, everyone! It really is!!"
[:)]
I had a sense that my statements would be taken along with all I've said, over time, about the importance of practices ... but obviously, you had the concern that might not be the case .... and. I also realize that certain threads/statements, etc. might be "read independently", and this dialog arose naturally ... and so, it's all (quite literally) good!
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman:
I'm pretty sure I've never said *all* you have to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman:
.... all we're saying is: enlightenment is real; it's wonderful, in a normal and real way; you can actually have it, too; all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ... and everything else.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
No worries; you know I would've done the same thing!!
[8D]
(Laughing, here; that's why I said "pretty sure" .... I don't remember much these days, which is primarily awesome .... but "just in case", I included the qualifier ......)
[:D]
And, ultimately, that (all you have to do is drop all your ideas about it ... and everything else. ) is a true statement, and possibly a useful orientation-point, as in:
"WOW -- *that's* what it's all about?? The dropping of conceptual ideas, from every level of consciousness, including long-term memory? That's what practices are for? Cool .... time for morning meditation!" ... within the greater context of meditation/practices being the means to melt away the mud-encrusted, light-obscuring ice ... which eventual reveals the beautiful, living One Lake (as Kashmir Shaivism calls it) underneath.
As Abhinavagupta says: "He who understands that ice and water are the same shall not be born into another body."
Unenlightenment is living in conceptually frozen "ice only" ... thinking that "enliquidment" is some far off, exotic condition.
Enlightenment is allow the melting of the mud-encrusted ice which came from a lifetime of freezing/thinking, into the beautiful One Lake, flowing ... living ... unbound ... ever-fresh ... by using the heat of practices, combined with the light of awareness and clear attention.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
I've said that dropping ideas represents a potentially major benefit, in terms of decreasing one's time to experiencing enlightenment .... in conjunction with, and on top of, proven practices (including inquiry), from the world's proven yogic and mystical traditions.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Yes, to be fair, you do also say that, which I am sure is a great help to many.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And I hope you are now clear, at least, on what I'm actually saying.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
A lot clearer. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Christi
No worries; same to you; good dialog!!
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi TI, Christi & All,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
What we could say, is that unity consciousness (which Kirtanman and Wayne Wirs are describing) is an initial stage of enlightenment, and that there are further stages beyond that. I referred to this a while ago in another thread as the stages of spiritual unfoldment beyond the realization of advaita.
Christi - could you please re-cap what you mean by this?
I recall you posting about it before, but I don't recall the details, nor am I sure I fully understood the explanation, at the time.
[:)]
I can't really comment without being a bit more clear on what you're saying, other than to say that, as far as I know/am experiencing, enlightenment (which I'm basically using, as I believe Wayne is, too ... as a term for the permanent shift of identity from the concept-me to concept-free awareness, in ongoing experiencing) is different from "unity consciousness", at least as I've heard the term used, before.
However, as I hope I've made clear: I'm not at all about definitions, here; if you feel that what I described in the paragraph above is what you mean by "unity consciousness" .... then that's as good a term as "enlightenment".
As I'm pretty sure we agree ... it's not about the terminology, it's about clear communication.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I agree. However, in advaita the enlightenment part seems to be stuck in the human part. Why didn't Nisargadatta quit smoking?
Because he knew himself to be awareness, and not the body-mind. The body-mind had a habit of smoking. So what?
(I'm both saying this directly, as well as re-articulating Nisargadatta's own view on the matter.)
Ramana Maharshi was asked if being vegetarian was important (remember: he was from South India, where *everyone* is vegetarian) ... and he responded:
"Yes, until the mind is steady; then, it doesn't matter."
That's part of the deal with the enlightenment, I'm discussing, anyway -- there's literally a sense of not being the body-mind, any longer.
It's many vacillations either subside, or continue without attachment.
Either way, there's liberation.
Smoking is as non-dual as anything else.
Another person asked Ramana about his temptation to "commit adultery" with a young neighbor woman.
Ramana replied, "Don't do it. But if you do it, don't think about it ... for you are not the doer."
Which is it in a nutshell.
I knew this, and experienced it intermittently, for quite some time.
In recent times, there's no sense of "doer" whatsoever.
"Kicking around" like a regular person still happens; there's just *zero* sense of the conceptual self-reference which was here before.
The effects would be quite dramatic, except there's truly no one here to find them dramatic.
I used to spend a good deal of every day *thinking*.
No longer; either the thinking doesn't arise, or, if there's any thought/emotional reaction, it's seen as a reaction of the body-mind, and subsides naturally almost instantly ... and has nothing whatsoever to do with me.
A lifetime of agitation, suffering and conceptual rumination has vanished to the tune of exactly 100%.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Ken Wilber (not that I give him any more license to write truth than anyone else) does say that the problem with Eckhart Tolle's presence or the 'Now' is that after experiencing it, it is interpreted according the vertical level of the dimension of consciousness that the person/group/religion is at. This kind of rung true for me, since all experience is 'remembered' and 'recalled' through the conditioned/veiled mind.
I agree with this, but would point out:
Wilber's material tends to facilitate the opposite issue, namely: becoming overly concerned/conceptual with what "quadrant" and/or "level" you are "at" at any time.
Wilber says Tolle gives too little definition; Tolle would likely say Wilber gives too much (if he cared enough to comment; I make that statement based on familiarity with Tolle's teaching ... not on any sense of what he might actually say, or not).
In general, I would say that the less ammunition conditioned mind is given to interpret a given set of teachings, the better .... which is probably why I resonate with certain advaitic teachings, as I do.
They articulate reality well, without a host of limited mind-fodder, which often attends other systems and schools (both traditional and modern).
Original awareness is one; conditioned consciousness is its own unique blend of ever-shifting misunderstanding.
And so, laying out accurate information, which can be verified in experience, and/or a simple template (such as Kashmir Shaivism) which outlines how the full spectrum of consciousness/awareness works, and/or a system like AYP, which focuses primarily on mechanics (practices and inquiry) ... are all good ways to go, I'd say (and have experienced/am experiencing).
More complexity tends to cause mind to get lost and confused .... and to think that anything important can come from some other person's information or experiences.
No one else's information or experiences matter at all.
The only enlightenment that matters is the one you experience for yourself.
I hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Focusing with perfect discipline on the heart, one understands the nature of consciousness.
**
Once the luminosity and transparency of consciousness have become as distilled as pure awareness, they can reflect the freedom of awareness back to itself.
Thanks for the recap of Section III of the Yoga Sutras.
I asked the question I did, because non-dual Kashmir Shaivism, distilled down to its essence, would essentially say the same thing as the (applicable) "heart sutra", quoted above (hrdaye chittasamvit ~Yoga Sutras 3.35)
A slightly more accurate translation might be:
"The unity of consciousness is known via the heart."
This has nothing to do with the physical heart, but with the "center of this" (hrdayam - heart - from hrd - center, and ayam - this) .... original awareness, without the artificial divisions of subjectivity and objectivity.
And so, you might be able to understand why I took that sutra to be quite complete, in and of itself.
However, I also like the summary statement of the last sutra in section 3 (sattva purusayoh suddhi samye kaivalyam iti ~Yoga Sutras 3.56) ... including the translation.
All the other stuff in section 3 (with the possible exception of the overview of Samyama itself, in the beginning of that section) is somewhat ancillary, in my opinion/experience.
And, as I've said many times: it's really all summed up in the second sutra of section I (called, appropriately enough "Samadhi Pada" - the section on primordial union) ...
yogash chitta-vrtti-nirodhah
("Yoga is the cessation of mind modifications")
~Yoga Sutras 1.2
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Part of the experiencing of this awareness is a shifting in identity from a limited idea of self, to an unlimited experiencing of, and identification with, the full field of awareness.
Many, including myself, are comfortable calling this "enlightenment".
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Ok. Let's create a new term. Let's call it enGoddenment. :)
Okay .... I'm not quite sure why, but sure.
[:)]
(Other than: you seem to be saying that liberation isn't enough, or isn't complete, and that somehow "godlike powers" represent a higher level of enlightenment ... or enGoddenment .... or whatever; is that what you're saying?)
And fine, if so; just trying to be clear on what you're saying, here.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
I've never known, or heard of any enlightened teacher (or, one who is widely recognized as such, using traditional definitions of the term .... Ramana Maharshi, Swami Lakshmanjoo, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Adyashanti, Yogani, etc.) who would fit your definition of enlightenment, either.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I'm so happy you didn't include Jesus in there.. :)
Er, no problem ................ he was the only one without a Sanskrit name ....
[:D]
But Seriously: with all sincere respect to whatever connection you have with Jesus; he didn't cross my mind, with respect to the context within which I was listing those other teachers.
As opposed to Jesus who would be the only one on your list (?) who you feel you could name for sure? (<- Just asking, here; I'm not sure I completely get what you're saying, regarding Jesus, here.)
Basically, they're (the teachers on my list) all from within the last hundred years, and we have a large volume of their direct words, and a fairly large group of living disciples students who have preserved those direct words, via the written word, audio and video.
There are quite a few enlightened masters from various global traditions I might have mentioned ... but this was a shorter list, comprising enlightened teachers from more recent times, is all.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanaman
However, there are definitions of enlightenment given in widely-respected, centuries-old texts (the Shiva Sutras, the Yoga Spandakarika, the Vijnanabhairava Tantra, the Yoga Sutras, etc.), as well as some more modern compilations and teachings (I Am That by Nisargadatta Maharaj, the teachings of Ramana Maharshi, Emptiness Dancing by Adyashanti, the AYP Lessons and AYP Enlightenment Series of books by Yogani) which do match, either exactly, or very closely .... the experiencing of enlightenment being described in this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
You know, there is an old saying: "Those that can, do, Those that can't, teach". I have read many stories about buddhists who attained the rainbow body and evaporated into light, leaving no trace behind (except memories of those they left behind).
That's a very interesting generalization.
I would say that the teachers I listed "did", or "do", per their teaching enlightenment, from enlightenment.
It doesn't get much more "doing" than that, as far as I know/experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
And who else died and took his body with him?
Dracula!
[8D]
No?
The Groundhog!
Oh, no ... he doesn't die.
Hm.
You may have stumped me, here .......
[:D]
Ok ... seriously?
My take on the hair-and-fingernails set, as I've said before (in the Rainbow Body thread, a couple-few months back) is:
It's very easy to write about such things; I'll have more of a sense that this might be a real dynamic, if I ever hear of anyone who has experienced such a thing directly.
In the meantime, though, I would say (with all genuine respect to those who believe in things) ....... that I feel this is all largely misunderstood.
Including (and again: sincere respect for all various beliefs; I'm just offering my sense of it) with respect to Jesus.
My sense of it is:
Resurrection into immortality, including the term "rainbow body" is a metaphor for the very shift of identity recently experienced here:
From identification with physical-mental body-mind, to no identification ... simply living unbound as original awareness, not the body-mind (although the experiencing of the body-mind occurs within it; body-mind feels much more like a sense or limb than a self.)
quote:
Enlightenment isn't about the word "enlightenment"; it's about the reality to which the word points.
And so, if you wish to define enlightenment as you do, that's fine ... but I'm not so sure you'll ever find anyone who matches it.
quote:
How about Jesus?
Dunno.
Some people wrote some stuff about him, several decades after he died (and according to the writings, undied) ...... and I'm not so sure it's a hundred percent accurate (neither am I sure it's not; I neither inherently accept nor reject the traditional/Biblical writings about Jesus).
This is both due to the writings themselves, and the way people understand them.
As far as I know, the only immortal "body" is awareness itself, but if you have the belief that Jesus resurrected with an immortal physical body ... that's fine; I respect all beliefs - though I don't necessarily share them.
The important point, from my perspective is:
Anything that anyone considers about Jesus is a product of mind, and so, subject to interpretation.
Technically, the same is true about the teachers I listed, as well.
The only enlightenment that matters is your own
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
"Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all things will be added onto you". Have you ever wondered what "all things" might be?
I used to.
Now I know.
"All things" is the one field of original awareness, and all things, which it contains.
When Self is experienced from this place, there's no sense of the possibility of desire, or of anything that can be added.
I realize there are many different interpretations of those words; I'm just describing how it matches experience here, is all.
"Seek ye first" means (again, in my experience) .... that enlightenment isn't the most important thing .... it's the only important thing.
Take care of it first, and there won't be concern about or desire for anything else.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Have you ever read "Autobiography of a Yogi" or "The Essence of the Bhagavad Gita"?
Autobiography: yes, a few times; I'm (prior to AYP) a kriyaban, with Ananda (offshoot of SRF).
"Essence" ... no.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
There are stories/rumors of those with amazing physical and energetic "siddhis" ... superpowers, if you will.
The Yoga Sutras and the Shiva Sutras both list them under "obstructions", and "obstacles" to realization and enlightenment; not as qualities of enlightenment.
Why?
Because even if one relaxes mind enough to be able to do some of the things you suggest, the manifestation of "actual super powers" brings limited mind roaring back into the picture -- either in the experiencing of the one with the powers (this is quite likely, in fact; it's only limited mind who would seek such powers, in the first place), or in the experiencing of those who experience the powers demonstrated.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I agree wholeheartedly. While you are climbing the ladder, there is no use for distractions. But once you arrive at the top, you don't need the ladder anymore.. Once you arrive at the top, you don't need advice either..
Or siddhis.
Life is lived for the good of all; if "siddhis" arise as part of that, they do ... but there's no seeking for them, or for anything else; original awareness is whole.
And, I've never heard of such siddhis actually arising for anyone.
My sense of it, is that Patanjali was outlining those sutras in a twofold way:
1. Concentrate, meditate and connect in samadhi with "quality X" (heart, elephant, etc.) ... and the focus, absorption and union will cause you to experience the true nature of subject-object unity as it begins to arise, and you will know what you need to know as you need to know it, prior to its apparent separation from you (kind of "outside in" from the way most people read section 3 of the Yoga Sutras).
2. Again: he's referring to awareness, and people think he means "physically". I don't know that anyone has ever physically flown through the air .... but awareness sure can. Ditto walking on water, etc.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Adyashanti has a great line about omniscience, where he says (basically; I'm paraphrasing just a little ... I heard this live at a satsang, years ago) ...
"People think that when you're enlightened, you know everything. Actually, the opposite is true; I know so much less than I did before I was enlightened, it's not even funny!"
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Yes, this definately falls short of enGoddenment. When I read that I think to myself "let's redefine enlightenment as something that is easily attainable so more people will believe that it is within their grasp."
Fair enough; it's your term; you're welcome to define it.
[:)]
I would say:
Awareness is inherently whole.
Omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence refers to the wholeness of awareness, prior to the bit of it conceptual mind perceives itself as being, identifies with objectivity/form only .... and that this is what these terms mean ... not the perception of "infinite superpowers" that thinking mind thinks these terms mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
In there Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath states that there are seven levels of kundalini. The first level is where most people are at. The second level is the level of geniuses like Einstein. He says the fifth level is where your body becomes a vessel of light.
Now, this may or may not be true, but I will be researching more about the levels of kundalini in the future. However, there is the component of intelligence in there that Adyashanti, by his statement, has conveniently bypassed thus mitigating the requirement.
"See above."
(He hasn't by-passed it at all; he just means something very different than what you interpreted.)
Basically: thinking mind tends to think of "having knowledge" or "using intelligence".
Original awareness *is* inherently its own liberated knowing-awareness; knowledge is not a separate object.
That's why, immediately after stating that "Self is Liberated Awareness" (Shiva Sutras 1.1), the Shiva Sutras say, and I quote:
"Knowledge is Bondage."
(Shiva Sutras 1.2)
Though knowing is not (bondage).
As in "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
The truth isn't an object we have; the truth is what we inherently are.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
There are three basic tiers to consciousness; knowledge is only applicable in the first two (physical and mental), and not the third (spiritual; nirvikalpa; turiya, etc.).
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This to me is an oversimplification of the levels of consciousness, especially after seeing this link:
http://www.mudrashram.com/GCC2.html
Why do you accept a model like this one that you linked to, yet dismiss one which has helped enlighten people for well over a millenium (the Shiva Sutras)?
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Have you realized all of these levels of consciousness? Do you have that kind of energy? (I'm not goading you on here, I'm simply asking. I have had kundalini surges that have blown open the top of my head revealing what looked like infinite planes of existence and it only lasted a short while but I couldn't handle it. Mentally, I had to reject it. It was too much for my little brain. I know I'm living in a dream world right now and that is still fine with me, but I do know now that I am deceiving myself. )
Experienced them?
Heck, I'm pretty sure I don't even remotely understand them!
[:D]
(Example: "Ground state of T5: top of the 12th Plane, the Mahanta or T5 Sat Guru".)
Why do you put so much stock in what George Boyd ("meditation teacher since 1983", and channeller of interestingly-drawn externalized masters {or something similar; I'm not quite sure I get this part, either ....}) has to say about it, as opposed to, say, millenia-old, yogically-proven texts, such as the Shiva Sutras?
And/or the living experience of those who experience and describe enlightenment, such as Yogani, Adyashanti, etc.?
The reason I lead toward the latter, far-simpler model is:
Simplicity, clarity and replicability (every major spiritual system uses it, from AUM in Hinduism/Tantra, to YHVH is Judeo-Christianity ... and has produced enlightenment for millenia, using it).
In it, we have:
Bindu (Turiya, inclusive of the spectrum of the 3 states below)
Spirit (Formless Awareness, Non-Duality)
Mind (Mixed Non-Duality & Duality)
Body (Duality)
I call it the "3-in-1-in-All" model.
It's also exemplified by:
AUM. (Including the dot, or bindu).
AHAM (Kashmir Shaivism; AHM. {AHAM} in Sanskrit - "I").
YHVH (Judaism, Christianity)
... and several other well-known consciousness models ... and includes all that's needed for enlightenment and liberation.
[:)]
I'm going to have to stop here for now; I may comment on the rest of your comments/questions in another post.
Thanks again for the conversation!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Ok. Let's create a new term. Let's call it enGoddenment. :)
Okay .... I'm not quite sure why, but sure.
[:)]
(Other than: you seem to be saying that liberation isn't enough, or isn't complete, and that somehow "godlike powers" represent a higher level of enlightenment ... or enGoddenment .... or whatever; is that what you're saying?)
And fine, if so; just trying to be clear on what you're saying, here.
[:)]
Yes, it isn't enough. If you are liberated (your word), then you should be able to materialize your body into my living room and drink some yogi tea with me. You should be able to transport me to a far away land and be back for dinner. Right?
If we (you and I) are God, why wouldn't we have all the powers? Doesn't mean we would use them, but doesn't 'liberation' mean you have attained perfection in God?
You're trying to sell me on the idea that the neo-advaitists' enlightenment is the same as "perfect union with God", or God realization, or enGoddenment, aren't you? Maybe it's true. I don't know that for sure. How would I know? I certainly don't feel it.
quote:
As opposed to Jesus who would be the only one on your list (?) who you feel you could name for sure? (<- Just asking, here; I'm not sure I completely get what you're saying, regarding Jesus, here.)
Jesus is the only example that I have of one who has attained enGoddenment. I felt that when I met him. Another very powerful being is Max Christensen (Kunlun) and I certainly felt that when I tuned into him (but nothing like Jesus). I don't know if Max is enlightened, but I met on a higher plane and he wouldn't let me into the 'sun and ocean' plane until I was ready.
quote:
My take on the hair-and-fingernails set, as I've said before (in the Rainbow Body thread, a couple-few months back) is:
It's very easy to write about such things; I'll have more of a sense that this might be a real dynamic, if I ever hear of anyone who has experienced such a thing directly.
To me, this sounds like a strange statement coming from you. Aren't you enlightened? Can't you access the Akashic records and find examples for yourself in the blink of an eye? Basically, what I believe you are trying to prove to us is that you are God, you have all these characteristics and powers (which you would never use), yet your mind writes these very human-limited statements that really make me wonder. I'm not being disrespectful here, I hope you realize. It is the same phenomenon I found with Adyashanti. Inconsistencies. I don't understand it. Do you think that they made up the fact that Jesus rose up from the dead? Can't you check it out yourself and let us know? Seriously..
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
"Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all things will be added onto you". Have you ever wondered what "all things" might be?
I used to.
Now I know.
"All things" is the one field of original awareness, and all things, which it contains.
This statement is not very humble in my humble opinion. If you 'know', have all things been added to you? Do you ever seriously take a look at what you are writing? I'm not attacking you here, I'm just pointing out these very simple ideas that pop into my head when I read some of things you write. I'm sure others are getting the same impression.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I agree wholeheartedly. While you are climbing the ladder, there is no use for distractions. But once you arrive at the top, you don't need the ladder anymore.. Once you arrive at the top, you don't need advice either..
Or siddhis.
Life is lived for the good of all; if "siddhis" arise as part of that, they do ... but there's no seeking for them, or for anything else; original awareness is whole.
And, I've never heard of such siddhis actually arising for anyone.
Who are you trying to convince here? Me or you? It is one thing to have a clever argument that prevents the display of siddhis, but it is another thing to possess those siddhis and hide them or pay them no notice. I think the latter would project more of an attitude of confidence, not denial, would it not? Caution is always advisable. The biggest siddhi the world has seen so far is the atomic bomb, and look at how many people that killed..
Again, I guess you don't access the Akashic records, have never taken part in any healings, have never seen great distances from the heart.. etc.. Is that what you are saying? I have and I'm not even enlightened.
quote:
I would say:
Awareness is inherently whole.
Omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence refers to the wholeness of awareness, prior to the bit of it conceptual mind perceives itself as being, identifies with objectivity/form only .... and that this is what these terms mean ... not the perception of "infinite superpowers" that thinking mind thinks these terms mean.
Are you denying the existence of miracles and superpowers? Why wouldn't superpowers exist, espescially since all form is created from the 'wholeness of awaress'? Have you no control when you are in a state of 'wholeness of awareness'? Have you never seen that thought is created from the divine and filters down into manifestation and manifests to the degree of energy it was given? Control the root, control the form. Isn't that the formula?
quote:
Why do you accept a model like this one that you linked to, yet dismiss one which has helped enlighten people for well over a millenium (the Shiva Sutras)?
I've never read the Shiva Sutras. Sorry. Maybe I should. :) Further, you keep putting words in my mouth and seem to be coloring me in shades that I am not, nor did I realize that perhaps others were perceiving me like that. Just because I quote a source doesn't mean I accept it. I merely present forms. If there is no truth in them, how would we know unless we had knowledge about those forms?
quote:
Why do you put so much stock in what George Boyd ("meditation teacher since 1983") has to say about it, as opposed to, say, millenia-old, yogically-proven texts, such as the Shiva Sutras?
I've never read the Shiva Sutras. I do not put "so much stock in George A Boyd". I was using his map of consciousness as a way to save typing and identify that there may well be infinite levels of consciousness. During some meditations I've experienced massive images of planes upon planes of existence. I was wondering if you've experienced the same.
quote:
And/or the living experience of those who experience and describe enlightenment, such as Yogani, Adyashanti, etc.?
Here you are grouping Yogani and Adyashanti together and making it seem like I'm opposed to Yogani, or that I'm opposed to Advaita teachings.
Yogani's definition of enlightenment is the mixing of ecsatic conductivity with silence/bliss. I'm not sure what Adyashanti's definition of enlightenment truly is, for his enlightenment experiences seem like psychic experiences to me. But if you compare Adyashanti's meditation practices to Yogani's, I would side with Yogani. I have two of Adyshanti's meditation tapes and they are basically "focus on the breath, listen to the silence, become aware of being aware, become aware of who is becoming aware". Yes, it does sound like Nisargadatta, but even Nisargadatta had various methods, one which was to watch your thoughts. In "I Am That", Nisargadatta varied his teachings based on the level and consciousness-culture of the student. Further, Buddha said that some form of self-inquiry is necessary for awakening.
I have no inclination to play politics. Truth is truth, no matter what the source. How can you judge truth by the source from which it came? However, truth has no contradictions or inconsistencies.
Part of being enlightened is the ability to perceive and represent many points of view and reveal the hidden truth of each of those points of view.
Now please don't hate me. The tone in this post is becoming somewhat disconcerting as I do not want to argue, nor do I want be at odds with you or offend you. The novelty of talking to an 'enlightened' person has not worn off and surely an 'enlightened' person has the detachment and presence of mind to deal with my mild challenges. And, I'd still like to ask you some questions, like, do you practice Adyshanti's methods or AYP's or have you quit practicing?
Again, thank you for the very stimulating conversation. :)
:)
TI
-
Namaste TI and All.....
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
truth has no contradictions or inconsistencies.
I disagree 100%. (not that it matters 1 iota[;)])
In my experience all of the "deep" Truths, the ones that seem "Absolute", are Paradoxes.....meaning they are DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS of themselves.
Just my experience though....
Now back to the ether[:o)]
Love,
Carson[^]
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
What we could say, is that unity consciousness (which Kirtanman and Wayne Wirs are describing) is an initial stage of enlightenment, and that there are further stages beyond that. I referred to this a while ago in another thread as the stages of spiritual unfoldment beyond the realization of advaita.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christi - could you please re-cap what you mean by this?
I recall you posting about it before, but I don't recall the details, nor am I sure I fully understood the explanation, at the time.
I believe there are three aspects to the transformation of the human being beyond the unity stage.
The first aspect is the continued refinement in the subtle sensory perceptions. This is, I believe related to things like empathy, compassion, clairsentience, clairvoyance, clairaudience etc.
The second aspect, which is related to this, is the integration of the higher dimensions of consciousness. I believe this is related to some of the supernatural abilities that are sometimes talked about such as the ability to perceive past lives or the ability to commune with angels or Gods. As my Kundalini Yoga teacher once said to me: "I live amongst the Gods".
The third aspect is the continued increase in the illumination of the subtle body and the ability of the subtle body to receive and transmit divine energy. Yogani talks in the main lessons about being able to sit in your room and transform the lives of people for miles around. I have met one man who could transform the lives of people pretty much anywhere in the world just by thinking about them. Yogani has talked about this as well.
So gradually, there is a subtle change in our senses to the point where we are literally living amongst the Gods, and healing energy is pouring out of us (through the crown, the heart and the eyes) and is transforming everyone who we touch and others all over the world and in other worlds.
I believe this isn't something that is desired, or sought after; it is just a process, which happens and is the destiny for each one of us.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
...
The third aspect is the continued increase in the illumination of the subtle body and the ability of the subtle body to receive and transmit divine energy. Yogani talks in the main lessons about being able to sit in your room and transform the lives of people for miles around. I have met one man who could transform the lives of people pretty much anywhere in the world just by thinking about them. Yogani has talked about this as well.
...
[:)]
-
Who wants to be a superman yogi? Some good fuel for inquiry...
-
Hi Christi,
Thanks for the interesting post. But I wonder about people who have developed psychic abilities, Deeksha, ect, and yet still don't seem to have obtained Unity of Consciousness (great description btw).
Are they just examples of people that for whatever reason are extremely receptive to psychic energies in the same way that some people are more open to deep and blissful meditations?
If this is a natural process like you say then I can't wait to see where modern spiritual teachers like Yogani, Adyashanti, and Eckhart Tolle will be in the future.
-
Hi Everyone. :)
Although Adyashanti says that is impossible to describe the nature of reality and that we are not capable of imagining what it is that we are, that it is unspeakable and unexplainable, he goes on to speak about it and explain it anyway. :)
In "The End of Your World" by Adyashanti he says:
quote:
The problem with defining awakening is that upon hearing each of these descriptions, the mind creates another image, another idea of what this ultimate truth of ultimate reality is all about. As soon as these images are created, our perception is distorted once again. In this way, it's really impossible to describe the nature of reality, except to say that it's not what we think it is, and it's not what we've been taught it is. In truth, we are not capable of imagining what it is that we are. Our nature is literally beyond all imagination. What we are is that which is watching - that consciousness which is watching us pretending to be a separate person. Our true nature is contiually partaking of all experience, awake to every instant, to each and every moment.
In awakening, what's revealed to us is that we are not a thing, nor a person, nor even an entity. What we are is that which manifests as all things, as all experiences, as all personalities. We are that which dreams the whole world into existence. Spiritual awakening reveals that that which is unspeakable and unexplainable is actually what we are.
I don't have any trouble visualizing or imagining "partaking of all experience, awake to every instant, to each and every moment". I may not experience that but I can certainly imagine it.
To me it means that you can be anybody (or anything) at any time. You can experience what they experience. You know their thoughts, their memories, their likes and dislikes. You possess all of their knowledge, their belief systems, their intuitions. You've 'lived' billions of lives. If you want to know the theory of relativity, you simple move your attention to Einstein. If you want the experience of being Elvis, you can be Elvis, in the blink of an eye. Heck, you could be the Beatles, Mick Jagger, and Janis Joplin all at the same time!
One can only imagine that after a while, it might get to be pretty boring and meaningless though. Perhaps that is why some people say that the real miracles are the little selfless things we do in life as human beings.
The thing that I am greatful for is this. During the time I decided to take a break from the I AM mantra and AYP practices in August, I was seeing layers upon layers of visions/planes/beings/scenes all going whizzing by rapidly. I was not impressed and after a while it was kind of disconcerting. I thought that that wasn't meditation. It was like being caught in some kind of expanding reality vortex and it had no meaning to me. And it didn't feel the greatest either, I felt like I was being overtaken and was going to lose myself. I thought it was just scenery in a giant TV vacuum machine that was going to eventually suck me out and burn me up.
But now I'm thinking that perhaps I was experiencing the expansion into the natural state, only I had no idea that that is what was happening. Do you think it is possible to experience enlightenment and not realize that that is what was happening?
So now I am contemplating what has been said here. If this was the kind of expansion required to attain enlightenment, then I know that it is reproducible because that experience of expansion was occuring every day for weeks during meditation. The other observation is that AYP techniques with a few additional techniques were causing it to be reproducible.
It does remind me of my favorite buddhist poem:
To Abide in Awareness
Without a center, without an edge;
The luminous expanse of awareness
That encompasses all--
This vivid, bright vastness:
Natural, primordial presence.
Without an inside, without an outside
Awareness arise of itself, as wide as the sky,
Beyond size, beyond direction, beyond limits--
This utter, complete openness:
Space, inseparable from awareness.
Within that birthless, wide-open expanse of space,
Phenomena appear--like rainbows, utterly transparent.
Pure and impure realms, buddhas and sentient beings,
Are seen, brilliant and distinct.
As far as the sky pervades, so does awareness.
As far as awareness extends, so does absolute space.
Sky, awareness, absolute space,
Indistinguishably intermixed:
Immense, infinitely vast--
The ground of samsara,
The ground of nirvana.
To remain, day and night, in this state--
To enter this state easily--this is joy.
Emaho!
Shabkar
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
First: thanks for this post, and all of them .... direct, honest dialog is never a problem.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Ok. Let's create a new term. Let's call it enGoddenment. :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
you seem to be saying that liberation isn't enough, or isn't complete, and that somehow "godlike powers" represent a higher level of enlightenment ... or enGoddenment .... or whatever; is that what you're saying?)
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Yes, it isn't enough. If you are liberated (your word), then you should be able to materialize your body into my living room and drink some yogi tea with me. You should be able to transport me to a far away land and be back for dinner. Right?
I do drink yogi tea, but for me, the infinite key to visiting your living room would likely involve Kayak.com and use of a major credit card.
[8D]
And I was beginning to lean toward the term "liberated" as having less connotations than "enlightened" ... but maybe not.
And, I would say that this portion of our conversation gets to the very heart of any confusion, in terms of understanding each other, here.
I would say no .... what I'm calling enlightenment does not involve any supernatural powers, inherently ... although what you're calling "engoddenment" presumably would.
Meaning: many people conceive of enlightened masters, or godlike masters, as having the ability to perform physical siddhis ... and they use this as "evidence of", and "criteria for" enlightenment.
And I think this is the source of the reason you've not been sure about some of the advaitic teachers, either ... I don't know that any of them ever displayed, or had the slightest interest in siddhis or superpowers.
I've never seen these things listed as a basic criteria for enlightenment, anywhere ... where did you get the idea that they would be involved?
And again: it's not about the definitions ... it's about actual experience.
And, in the context of our conversation here, I'm just attempting to convey mine .... which has zero involvement with any siddhis, superpowers, akashic records access, and/or special abilities to transcend basic physical law.
So what *do* I mean, when I refer to "liberation and enlightenment"?
Simply that what I'm calling enlightenment involves an utter living knowing of non-dual true nature ... what I call "original, unaugmented awareness" (among a few other things. [:)]).
There are major clues all over various sacred and yogic writings ("yoga is the cessation of mind modification") ... but until the full power of the identity shift takes place, it's impossible to understand what's being said ... because all words can do is point to what's being said ... primarily in terms of saying what it's *not* ... but when identity is still attached primarily to form, the benefits of the type of enlightenment I'm referring to likely seem confusing at best (they sure did to me, at least!).
It's like: "Okayyyy .... so ... there's no me; there's .... just awareness .... great; sounds kinda empty, and/or maybe boring .... if that's all it is .... what's the big deal?"
Kind of?
Again, that's how it seemed to me, initially.
Then, over the last (roughly) couple of years ... I went from experiences of nirvikalpa samadhi (a fancy term for "no form whatsoever, yet awareness remains") to sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi (a fancy term for experiencing daily life in unitive awareness; no subject-object division ... simply the wholeness of awareness, and the manifestations within it).
Sometimes, I use the illustration of awareness "dialing open" .... from the constrictions of thoughts, feelings, memories and imagination .... to the openness of full presence now, with zero sense of artificial division.
Without that artificial division, in a strange-yet-normal way ... everything literally feels like "me" ... the words appearing on my monitor right now ... and the monitor ... are no less me than "my tongue" ... or the song coming through my computer speakers ..... it's all part of the perfect harmony of this perfect moment .... a very normal moment ... and enjoyed fully, because there's no "me" feeling any of the zillions of little conflicts or vacillating thoughts that "me"s usually experience (the "me" ultimately being a deeply conditioned concept of partiality, that isn't actually real).
However, until very recently, while this could be a sustained experience, every so often, there would be a sense of "falling back out of" unitive awareness, and into feeling like, well (at the time) *me*.
It was problematic; mentally I knew I wasn't this set of conditioning ... but the experiencing of it still arose.
I basically "considered myself enlightened" (an ironic term if ever there was one), over the last several months ... never in an "I am and you're not sense", regarding anyone "else" .... but purely in a "considering how experiencing matches up to what I know of the nature of enlightenment ... there's enlightenment here".
Which was still about a hundred thousand times too much self-reference about it, to be accurate or pertinent.
[:)]
Then, several weeks ago, there was a major shift ... qualitatively, quantitatively and revelationally.
Qualitatively
I'm not "in" awareness; I am awareness.
It's not a shift from limited mind to unlimited mind; it's a shift from limited mind to ........... nothing at all.
It can't even really be described as enlightenment, really.
On the great spectrum of unenlightenment to enlightenment, this is ...... simply not on that spectrum; or any other.
Almost more than awareness, the beingness itself feels like space .... yet also feels like the stuff in it ... but there's no sense of the personal ... even though awareness lives primarily via this given body-mind ... though it's known that that's a perspective thing (the world looks a bit different out of just your left eye, than just your right eye; likewise, awareness experiences "this body" differently than "that body" ... yet it's felt as one awareness ... though not in a supernatural way at all ... more in a recognition way).
Beneath the ever-changing confluence of personality, thoughts, feelings and conditioning, awareness animates every life .... and the unitive nature of that awareness is felt ... ekasparsa (one touch) ... ekarasa (one taste; one flavor; one essence).
I'm sitting here smiling, as I write this; utterly grateful, yet with no object of gratitude .... how limited mind could ever have dream there could be anything more marvelous than this moment ..... is just amazing ... in a happily, peacefully beautiful way.
It's not at all because of what's going on in this moment ...... it's because it's this moment ..... which is a slightly different moment than the moment I was so grateful for a moment ago.
[:)]
A couple of nights ago, I was really sick (I hear about Adyashanti being sick, several years ago, and thought "Hmph; if he's enlightened, how come he's sick?"
Same reason I was: form does form stuff; body-minds get sick; it doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment.
Form can only relate enlightenment to form, somehow.
Our true nature is not form (though includes it) ... our true nature is the awareness experiencing the manifestation of the part of itself called "form".
And so, the form typing these words was enthusiastically vomiting the other night. One round was completed, and the body-mind was about to, um ... "arise" [8D] ... and stagger back to bed .... but as soon as I/body-mind was standing .... guess what?? .... *more* .... enthusiasm .... needed to be .... immediately expressed ....
And so, while anyone in the vicinity likely perceived a goat with sinus congestion engaging in unnatural congress with a poorly-working vacuum cleaner .... and while my abs engaged in another round of involuntary uddiyana (or whatever that's called), and my mouth, throat and nose wer{CENSORED FOR THE GOOD OF HUMAN KIND}iping up the floor, I had the passing thought:
"You'd think I could find *something* to be less than pleased about, here ..."
(I couldn't)
"... or some ... preference for a more ... pleasant ... circumstance ..."
(I couldn't)
"... or some sense of wishing this moment was different ....."
(How could I? It was perfect; utterly ... not "perfect better than"; literally perfect: complete.)
The reason "I" couldn't, is quite simple: there's literally and actually no experience of "I" ..... awareness experiences what's going on; there truly isn't preference.
It's like taking a step back .... where everything occuring in form feels like a sense, or a limb ... yet not a self.
Adyashanti says: "The world is not my concern; it is myself."
That's how it feels.
The Shiva Sutras say that (in enlightenment) "the body is the perceptible" ... all form is the body; it does what it does; awareness experiences the totality of the moment .... not the "me" (concept of body-mind) in "the world" (all that which is separate from "myself").
It's all one; what happens happens; human life continues as human life .... yet there is utter harmony with all, every moment.
Utter harmony.
I have pleasant tears forming in my eyes, as I write these words.
"The peace which passes all understanding" is real ... the Bible phrases it that way .... because true peace *specifically* and *completely* surpasses understanding .... meaning: in the realm of understanding, of form, it is not possible to experience.
The same with "freedom beyond imagination" (a phrase that came to me a while back) ..... those three words don't mean "really, really great freedom; they mean "the freedom that is only experienced beyond imagination; here, now .... in the midst of the unity of all that is real, now; this that we each and all actually are, now."
There is only now.
Past and future are concepts held in mind, now; mental form ... arising, displaying and subsiding, now.
Seeking and finding both resolved themselves into the actual.
There is no more "my life" .... simply living, unbound.
Loving.
Wholeness.
Giving.
Connection.
And yet, there's no "being excited about it" ..... it's so much deeper than that; so infinitely more vast .... yet only here, only now.
It's all those concepts arising from the concept of "me" that obscure the divine light illuminating everything, now .... the complete beauty and harmony of life living unbound is revealed; liberated and enjoyed.
[:)]
I was recently putting some attention on a body-part that didn't feel so good (in connection with the sickness I mentioned) ... attention alone heals.
And I noticed: in the past, there would have been a slight sense of conflict regarding "healing me" .... now, there's the knowing that this body-mind has nothing to do with a "me" ... and healing enables it to serve in its natural role of connectedness with the whole ..... just as a tree does, or a cloud does, or a stream does, or a bird does ... or the sun does, or a leaf does, or a molecule, a galaxy, a hamster, a weed ........ as everything except for the distortion of the wholeness of consciousness called the human ego, does.
Wholeness is natural; conflict is the dream.
Quantitatively
Pure bliss consciousness, outpouring of divine love, 24/7.
Only peace; only awareness; only simple, pleasant peace; only goodwill and loving for all.
That might sound like "quite the list", if there was a "me" living it ... but "I" am not living these things; these qualities arose when the conceptual "I" finally dissolved completely.
Revelationally
Which brings me (quote unquote) to the "revelationally" portion of this post:
This "enlightenment" isn't about the experience; experiences come an go; moments, lifetimes; eons .... they all come and go.
This "enlightenment" (or whatever it can be called) .... is about the dissolution of the limited experiencer.
When it's gone, it's known to be gone ........ it was never real in the first place.
And in this space of aware I-less-ness ........ all the promises of the world's sacred teachings are simply how it is.
Peace which passes all understanding?
Check (no non-peace; no one to be non-peaceful).
Freedom beyond imagination?
Check (no imagination; without it, the freedom is inherent).
Pure bliss consciousness?
Check (limited self-concept really was blocking it, all this seeming-time).
Outpouring of divine love?
Check (not as a quality; as this that I am; life connects with life ... look around you; the whole universe is just this .... as I Am ... as we all are ... we are the conscious experiencing of life connecting with life .... the utter freedom of it .... the simple and real joy of it .... when the dream of separation and partiality finally ceases to arise; when enough attention finally rests again in natural balance, now ... conscious of its true nature as the experiencing consciousness of all this, now).
[:)]
Can you (anyone reading) open your heart .... rest in silence ..... and let yourself take in the magnitude of this .... in and as the silent awareness you actually are, now?
It's everything.
It is worth everything.
It is liberation.
There is no more birth and death (body-minds die; I don't) .... a body-mind dying is like a cell dying to a human body-mind system; not even noticed.
There has never been a subjective death; it's not possible.
Form arises, displays, subsides ... whether as a rainbow, a human life, or a Universe.
There is no death; only change in display, and ever .... I Am.
And as I've said quite a few times, now:
"You am", too; really.
In the realm of form ... I know what I need to know when I need to know it.
In the realm of form .... I fill the Universe.
In the realm of form .... I am the one power .... divine love ... natural fountaining forth as peace, bliss; simple good-cheer, simple intentioning for the uplifting into conscious wholeness for all.
There is nothing else to have, know, be or be about.
There's no one to "get" or "have" enlightenment.
Enlightenment isn't an object; enlightenment is what happens when all duality ... including the concept of enlightenment ..... dissolves; completely.
As Adyashanti says:
"I'm like a friendly old dog now, wearing my master's slippers; but somehow, they fit perfectly."
It's like:
Game over.
Battle over.
Living unbound now.
Lovingly.
Wholly.
Freely.
On one level, "I" died (or, per above ... "changed") ... on another, I am born, now.
And now.
And now.
[:)]
And so, that's all my very kirtanmaniacal (i.e. "not exactly brief ... [:D]) way of saying:
"Okay .,... so maybe some feel this is a "limited version" of enlightenment; that's perfect, too."
However .... given a choice between every siddhi ever mentioned .... or this exquisitely real moment, lived as the awareness-filled space of wholeness loving now ..... whoever wants "siddhis" is more than welcome to them; any powers in form are nothing in relation to knowing self as the fulness of formless awareness including all form, now.
Form is subsidiary to the formless; they can't be compared.
Liberation is living, eternally, infinitely, in and as the formless awareness we each and all are, now.
And, I've got a bit of sinus drainage (or, rather "body-mind" does) .... and my left toes are asleep because I sit in a weird way when I write posts, and I have a kink in my right shoulder .... and there's never been a moment, lived by anyone, ever, anywhere, more perfect than this one.
Reality is perfection.
[:)]
I do understand how strange, or "over the top" some or all of this may seem to you (TI) and some people reading .... because I was there (trying to understand the formless using the tools and perspective of form) not long ago, at all.
Which is the major point behind everything I've been saying:
If I can do it (experience the full identity-shift involved in enlightenment), and "do it" utilizing a core set of yogic practices, centering around AYP -- so can anyone reading.
It may well be that discussion about it won't end up being productive ... which is fine.
My point is simple:
Hey, everyone: enlightenment is real; it's here; it's attainable; you can have it, too.
There are quite a few enlightened teachers around .... but not too many yogic practitioners who have recently shifted into actual enlightenment, that I know of (Wayne Wirs and I being a couple of exceptions) ... and so, when Wayne made the statement "one of the reasons I'm talking about enlightenment is to let people know it's possible" (or whatever he said; I'm paraphrasing his original statement) ... I felt a sense of "Hey, yeah! Encouragement is good ...." .... and so, I added my voice to his sentiments, as well.
I didn't know it would turn into a dialog like this .... and it's quite perfect that it did; if nothing else, I'd say that AYP is about clarification .... and as long as we all maintain a vigorous commitment to the actual and beneficial, we can create clarification in real-time (irony noted [8D]), as we're doing here.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
If we (you and I) are God, why wouldn't we have all the powers? Doesn't mean we would use them, but doesn't 'liberation' mean you have attained perfection in God?
My answer would be: actual perfection in God is substantially different than imagined perfection in God.
What are "all the powers"? Powers as a concept of God is conceived to have? What would necessarily be true or useful about any of those, except those which love, uplift, nourish and empower?
In experiencing here, God is a term for the completion of formless awareness .... including its knowing of itself as the source of formless and form, both.
Unitive Awareness
Clarified Mind
Divinized Life
Has been called:
Father
Son
Holy Spirit
Or
Awareness
Energy
Matter
Or
Spirit
Mind
Body
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
You're trying to sell me on the idea that the neo-advaitists' enlightenment is the same as "perfect union with God", or God realization, or enGoddenment, aren't you? Maybe it's true. I don't know that for sure. How would I know? I certainly don't feel it.
I'm actually not trying to sell you on anything.
[:)]
And quick clarification of terms:
No one I'm referring to is a "neo-advaitist" (or, more accurately: "neo-advaitin") .... I'm not at all a fan or promoter of the "neo-advaita" philosophy, which basically says:
"All this is it, including your current condition of internal conflict, torment and confusion; so just accept it, and be done with it."
The acceptance part of that is the only thing good about it; the rest "not so much".
I subscribe more to the traditional advaitic (used loosely and literally - advaita is just Sanskrit for "non-dual"; I'm not referring to Advaita Vedanta, the philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya, but more the advaitic tantric yogas, such as Kashmir Shaivism, and {I would say, as well} AYP; the Kabbalah, etc. -- and advaita (not neo-advaita) teachings ... which come in many different forms ...... and which I consider as those where the teacher is teaching from non-duality ... and simply teaching what the experiencing of non-dual enlightenment is like, and (usually) a bit about how to get t/here.
This includes teachers like Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, Swami Lakshmanjoo, Abhinavagupta (and most/all of the sages of Kashmir Shavism), Paramahamsa Nithyananda, Adyashanti (and I would say), Yogani ... and well as those of us here, including myself, promoting these same views, which are, simply:
The living experience of reality, and how to get here.
The two defining qualities are:
*Speaking/teaching from direct experience.
*Describing how to get to this place of direct experiencing, as experienced/known directly.
The other two approaches I've seen, are:
*Dualistic (God is god, you are not, and what we say about it all is true, including all the fantastic stories about great, super-human beings in a galaxy/country far, far away; oh, and by the way: tithe ... yes, to us; check payable to ....... ).
*Mixed Dual/Non-Dual ("This is it, and so is your pathetic, suffering-filled life, and any effort to the contrary is just more delusion; enjoy!" <---- NEO-ADVAITA, or, as I prefer to call it: FAUX-Advaita).
Mixed Duality/Non-Duality, and Duality can be accurate descriptions of lived experience *if* they are accurately integrated into the greater framework of non-dual reality.
Simply put:
The formless is non-dual; form is obviously dual; experiencing mind is obviously a mixture of the two ...... the fulness of what we are is the being-awareness living this full spectrum consciously now.
The spiritual path is usually started "fully dual" ... and bit by bit, silence (non-duality) arises (advaitadvaita - dual/non-dual, mixed), and finally, is seen-known-living as true nature, experiencing its creation of its universes of gross (physical) and subtle (mental/energetic) form (living non-duality, which includes duality and mixed duality/non-duality).
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
To me, this sounds like a strange statement coming from you. Aren't you enlightened?
Maybe by some definitions, maybe not by others.
For one, there's really no one here to be enlightened or unenlightened .... the dissolution of very duality projected by the idea of the separate self is simply gone.
"Enlightenment" may or may not be the best term for that, and, as I've said repeatedly, in agreement with Yogani:
"No special claims, here."
I truly mean that; it's not double-speak (i.e. I'm not saying "I'm enlightened, but no special claims" ..... I'm saying: "Enlightenment is possible" ... which is different than saying "I'm enlightened".)
However, the *main* aspect that likely makes "I'm enlightened" an inaccurate statement, is that it does imply there's some sort of a static line or level .... and it's not like that, at all.
It's the realization that what I actually *am* is not what I thought/pseudo-lived for "my whole life" .... "I" if it can be called that, is inherently of an utterly different nature than what was always perceived .... but that utterly different being hasn't "gotten anywhere" ... it literally just woke up to what it *is*).
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Can't you access the Akashic records and find examples for yourself in the blink of an eye?
Um ...... nope.
I'm not even sure, exactly, what the Akashic Records are supposed to be (aren't they that division of Atlantic that released albums by a few indie bands before folding in the late nineties? [8D])
Seriously: I know "Akasha" is the Sanskrit word for space, and Akashic records are allegedly the imprinted records of everything ever said or done on this planet (if I recall correctly), that enlightened {I guess; taking your word for it, here, truly} beings can allegedly access, etc. etc.
I don't know anything about stuff like that; I don't care anything about stuff like that.
If you read the words of Nisargadatta, or Ramana, or Adya ..... none of them do, either.
Nisargadatta said it well, when someone asked him if he "knew" the weather in New York (they were in Mumbai, then Bombay).
He responded something like: "Whyy are you concerned with such things? If I want to know the weather in New York, I can look in a newspaper."
The questioner persisted, and asked about whether or non he could cultivated the ability ... and he responded:
"Of course; anything is possible with training. However, I have no interest."
I remember when I first started "getting" that the guys who seemed *really* and *actually* enlightened didn't even *care* about all the fantastical stuff that my mind was sure must be part of the deal.
My mind was kind of disappointed.
But there was also a part of me that just kind of felt the authenticity behind their words.
Theirs wasn't an imagination gratifying, storybook enlightenment ... theirs was a *real* enlightenment.
Remember: I know Adyashanti (not super well, but I know him ... as in "hung out talking in the parking lot after satsang, off-the-record chats" ... which were very undramatic ... and very real.)
I saw that *something* in his eyes; in his consistent unflappability.
I saw it in Annie (now Mukti), Adya's wife (who I've actually talked with, one on one, much more than I have with Adya; she's a sweet, nice and authentically enlightened woman).
I picked up on it from Yogani.
And now, I'm offering it, too, by simply saying:
Liberation is real.
It's not supernatural.
It's not full of the fantastical stuff the mind imagines.
But it is real.
And it is liberation.
But only utterly.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Basically, what I believe you are trying to prove to us is that you are God
[:D]
Er ..... that would be a ... *NO*.
[8D]
I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone.
And, to quote Paramahamsa Nithyananda:
"I'm not here to show you that I am God; I'm here to show you that you are God."
Like, seriously.
Nothing ..... not a single word .... out of the many, many ..... that I've written in this thread ......... have the intention of eliciting any perception about Kirtanman, at all.
Not even the tiniest bit.
You may have heard the expression:
"When a finger is pointing at the moon, the wise man looks at the moon, and the fool, the finger."
I'm not calling you a fool, TI ... for one, I wouldn't ... and for two, you're certainly not a fool, in anyway ..... but, please notice:
ALL I'm doing is pointing to the moon, and saying: it's right here, and it's yours, too!!
That's all; I'm not only not pointing at myself, and say "see this about me" .... I'm not pointing at myself at all ........ I'm solely, only pointing out what is possible for you.
As I said in another post in this thread:
I don't care about my enlightenment; I care about yours.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
you have all these characteristics and powers (which you would never use)
I do??
What might those be??
[:)]
Seriously: no powers, per se; and the only characteristics here are the beauty of the absence of the conceptual self, which most assuredly is not "mine", it's ours ..... and the only difference between what's going on here, and what's going on in anyone reading (if there is a difference in experiencing) .... is that I know this consciously, whereas you may not yet; we are not different -- only our experiencing may be different. There is a great chain of extended hands uplifting us all, and when the uplifting occurs, the hand turns around and extends, naturally ... seamlessly.
If you want to know what it's all about, just take my hand ... or see where it is pointing .... so that you, too, can know and enjoy for yourself ... and find yourself naturally extending your hand, too.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
yet your mind writes these very human-limited statements that really make me wonder.
My statements may seem that way because your mind (apparently, based on what you write) has a pre-conceived standard concerning what an "enlightened" person should look or sound like.
Please: drop that (not for me; for you -- so that you can see clearly.)
As Adyashanti says: I am a window; look through me -- not at me.
I'm guessing that you put a lot more "stock" into my statements than I do.
I'm just a guy from one angle; formless liberated awareness from another.
So are you; so is everyone.
Knowing this eliminates all suffering, fear and allows natural, infinite freedom to be experienced and enjoyed, every moment, now.
If this sounds appealing; keep practicing, drop judgments, pay attention (to your own experiencing) ... and before long, you'll be encouraging others to know this, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I'm not being disrespectful here, I hope you realize. It is the same phenomenon I found with Adyashanti. Inconsistencies.
I understand; I'm not worried about respect or disrespect either way, but I get the sincerity in your words, and I thank you; and same to you ... only respect here, as well.
The inconsistencies are due to your preconceptions, not to anything related to the actuality of liberation.
The actuality of liberation is nothing like the mind imagines, nor can imagines.
It is real, and it doesn't involve anything fantastical, as far as I know ... and yet, it's so infinitely much more ... and less .... than any powers could ever be.
Power is a quality of form.
Form serves the formless.
The formless is the subjective side ... the experiencing awareness ... I Am ... no different than you ... no different than anything .... awareness is just One ... not fragmented and fabricated into the million little pieces of the conceptual me.
None of us actually is ever the conceptual me ... we just think we are ... until that dream dissolves, and the liberation of our true nature as formless awareness is revealed, now.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I don't understand it. Do you think that they made up the fact that Jesus rose up from the dead?
I don't know.
My sense of it (intuitive sense; the primary operating-aspect of consciousness, now) .... is that a very sublime and powerful symbolism may have been distorted by looking at the "finger" of the form of the stories and symbolism, rather than the "moon" of where the symbolism is pointing.
There's no such thing as immortal form, outside of imagination .... as Tolle says "even the Sun will die".
Even the Sun will die ... and still, I Am.
Form dies (changes), the formless is living unbound.
Knowing this is liberation.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Can't you check it out yourself and let us know? Seriously..
Nope. Seriously.
[:)]
Allow yourself, if you like, to get *really* rigorous with what is actual.
What "happened" with Jesus, presuming Jesus "was historical", is .... what?
It's a thought, in your mind .... now.
All "past" is a thought, in your mind, now.
It all happens now, and only now.
What Jesus is, or was, is conceptual.
Even your meeting with Jesus is conceptual ... because it is a memory, now ... a mental form ..... conceptual.
That doesn't mean unreal per se .... it just means "not changelessly real" in the same way experiencing awareness is changelessly real.
Ever-changing you is trying to understand ever-changing concepts with the ever-changing vacillations of ever-changing conceptual mind.
Jesus himself counseled to build your house upon the rock of true nature ... not on the shifting sands of vacillating conceptuality.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
"Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all things will be added onto you". Have you ever wondered what "all things" might be?
I used to.
Now I know.
"All things" is the one field of original awareness, and all things, which it contains.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This statement is not very humble in my humble opinion.
I'm not concerned with humble nor non-humble.
It's not about humility; it's about accuracy.
I invite you to re-read that statement again, and picture a happy, easy neutrality from me; I'm simply speaking of my experience of it.
I'm not saying anyone else is wrong; I'm saying I have an experiential confidence in the beauty and truth of that teaching; that's all.
It's interesting; you want impressive power on the one hand, and humility on the other ..... when all I'm saying is:
It's really awesome, here in the real; c'mon ... check it out; you're it, too!!
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
If you 'know', have all things been added to you?
I didn't mean "know" in a non-humble way .... just in a .... "this is my experience", way.
In the original Hebrew-Aramaic oral tradition of Christianity, kingdom is "Malkhut", equivalent to Muladhara, root, in Sanskrit ... the home of Shakti, or as Hebrew terms the Holy Spirit, manifested divinity: Shekinah.
The "heaven" that it is the kingdom of is known as Chokmah ... pure silent awareness; Shiva.
Seek ye first kundalini, and manifested divine activity ... and your identity as pure formless consciousness (Shiva) ... and ultimately, the union of Shiva and Shakti (all these things) shall be added to you.
Jesus was simply guiding people concerning where and how to focus their efforts.
Even more simply:
If you seek first the "kingdom" ... is you prioritize enlightenment ... the reward is both immeasurable and unimagineable.
You discover ... it is revealed .... that you know the truth, the truth makes you free .... and you actually are the truth that makes you free.
This is, indeed, far greater than any other "all these things" that limited mind can imagine.
And they're not "mine" any more than they're yours; they're yours .... everyone's, 100% as much as "mine" ..... there is no mine ... there's only *ours*, only *us*, only *this* ............ that's what anyone who is saying anything about it is trying to tell you.
The mind can't understand it.
The heart has to take a swan dive into the infinite ...... and drown in the sea of undying gratitude, bliss and peace.
"Good work if you can get it."
And it beats the crap out of any imagined version of enlightenment, let me tell ya!
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Do you ever seriously take a look at what you are writing?
Not if I can help it!
[:D]
(You see how much I write; do you have any idea how much *work* that would involve?? [8D])
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I'm not attacking you here, I'm just pointing out these very simple ideas that pop into my head when I read some of things you write.
See -- we're not so different after all; that's exactly what I do, with what you write .... only what I write doesn't even qualify as "ideas" .... it's just ... writing.
Enlightenment and liberation may be very poor terms to use; ditto God, and many others; too much cultural, linguistic and conceptual baggage attached to them.
I'm inviting everyone to the experience of something very real, very simple; very beautiful; that's all.
It seems you may have seen me use the word "enlightenment" ... and started measuring ... "Hm ... doesn't look so enlightened to me .... hmm ... that sounded almost enlightened .... but .. whoa ... definitely not that!!"
I'm here, splashing in the pool, saying "swimming is real, and it's fun ... c'mon in; the water's fine!!"
And you're (and truly; no disrespect intended, ever ... this is just a tongue-in-cheek, yet pertinent illustration) ... seemingly ... saying:
"But I read that in 'enliquidment' you walk ON the water .... not swim IN it ... how can you say you're 'enliquided'??"
As the start of the Guns N Roses song Civil War (the movie quote) says:
"What we have here .... is a failure ... to communicate ....."
[:)]
I'm not saying anything about "enliquidment" (though "guilty as charged" for using the word) ... and I'm not defining "enliquidment" .... I'm just saying that splashing around in the water is a lot more fun than debating whether the water is real .... and once we complete swimming lessons (enough practices/inquiry) .... we all get to know the fun of swimming, if we're willing.
Pride, humility, powers, siddhis ....... really aren't pertinent.
Limited mind always makes it far more complicated ... and less real ... than it actually is.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Who are you trying to convince here? Me or you?
Neither; convincing has never entered my mind, here (in this dialog); no kidding.
A different view just arises, to share .... offering some possibly different perspective, is all.
While mind is trying to figure it out, the opportunity to actually live it is passing you by.
By focusing on the conceptual, you miss it.
Wondering about whether siddhis is real, who has them, what they mean, etc. .... is exactly like wondering about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin:
Simply not pertinent to anything other than some closed-looping that limited-mind finds entertaining.
It (reality of siddhis or lack thereof) has no bearing on enlightenment ..... period.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
It is one thing to have a clever argument that prevents the display of siddhis, but it is another thing to possess those siddhis and hide them or pay them no notice. I think the latter would project more of an attitude of confidence, not denial, would it not? Caution is always advisable. The biggest siddhi the world has seen so far is the atomic bomb, and look at how many people that killed..
You lost me; either I don't have the requisite discernment siddhi ..... or it's getting late, here.
[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Again, I guess you don't access the Akashic records, have never taken part in any healings, have never seen great distances from the heart.. etc.. Is that what you are saying? I have and I'm not even enlightened.
Akashic records: correct, I haven't.
Healings: depends on how you define; maybe .... but not in any dramatic/impressive ways.
Seeing great distances from the heart: Not sure what this means.
I've had some interesting experiences, but they were all less-directly-related to liberation than I could have imagined.
Now, the interesting experience is reality.
All the "amazing" stuff, and/or metaphysical stuff is interesting enough while it happens, but it is subsidiary .... infinitely so ... to liberation itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Are you denying the existence of miracles and superpowers?
Not at all; neither am I confirming them; I'm simply uninterested in them.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Why wouldn't superpowers exist, espescially since all form is created from the 'wholeness of awaress'?
I don't know; decent question, though.
I experience it all as living the miraculous every moment .... we are the biggest miracle of all ..... dreaming we need to look for miracles.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Have you no control when you are in a state of 'wholeness of awareness'?
None. If there was a me, and especially if it had control, I would no longer be wholeness of awareness, but an effect of it/myself.
Has the ocean control concerning how it "waves"?
Form is effect.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Have you never seen that thought is created from the divine and filters down into manifestation and manifests to the degree of energy it was given? Control the root, control the form. Isn't that the formula?
Kinda-sorta.
Hey, at least now we're discussing some things I can comment on ...... "progress"!!
[:)]
Wholeness of awareness is/I am.
Original, still awareness.
Movement happens; emanation.
Creation occurs from the building-blocks of conditioning and/or creative thought.
Formation (specific creation) is structured from the building-blocks of creation.
Expression/manifestion is the gross/final display; it dissolves ... back to original whole awareness, now.
Every moment, every perception.
With enough inner silence ... the full cycle of thought/perception/creation is experienced, now.
It's a major clue.
Wholeness of awareness has never been "gone".
There's just been inordinate focus on its own creations.
Really.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Further, you keep putting words in my mouth and seem to be coloring me in shades that I am not, nor did I realize that perhaps others were perceiving me like that. Just because I quote a source doesn't mean I accept it. I merely present forms.
My apologies; I didn't mean to do that; I was taking you at what I understood to be "face value" ..... you said something like "I didn't realize there were this many levels to consciousness, until I saw this" .... which I took to mean that you were promoting this model as fact, while discounting others .... specifically those with fewer levels.
I also took this to be an implicit endorsement of the person who created that model.
I didn't mean it insultingly toward you or him .... I was asking why, given the dynamics (very proven model, vs. less-proven, based on time alone, if nothing else) ... you seemed to be putting so much "stock" in that particular model.
That's all.
I admit that my view is colored a bit by the fact that the simple/traditional model seems real and complete, based solely in experience .... and that therefore, more complex ones may be occluding rather than helpful ..... but I also know that I can't know what might be helpful for someone else, at the level of mind/specific view.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
If there is no truth in them, how would we know unless we had knowledge about those forms?
Per what I wrote above, part of liberation is living experience of the range of the formless and of form ... all of it.
I'm not saying George Boyd's model is wrong; I don't know if it's right or wrong; it just seems unnecessarily complex, and he seemed to be speaking of it from the standpoint of still being within it; I'm not.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_IceDuring some meditations I've experienced massive images of planes upon planes of existence. I was wondering if you've experienced the same.
Yes, I have; it's strange, now that you mention it; they all kind of resolved, simplified and smoothed out, I guess you could say; it's kind of an angle/view thing, I guess; dramatic and vast on the way "up" (i.e. the very scenery AYP and thousands of years of sacred teachings advise *against* paying attention to); simple and beautiful, just being here.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Here you are grouping Yogani and Adyashanti together and making it seem like I'm opposed to Yogani, or that I'm opposed to Advaita teachings.
Um .... not at all, actually.
I said: please look at those who ... and I quote .... "describe enlightenment".
My point was: those who I know of, who describe enlightenment from the standpoint of experience .... any of them .... Adya and Yogani were just two examples of "normal enlightened guys who I happen to know" ..... describe it as being very simple.
That was my entire point.
No politics; no aspersions cast .... it never crossed my mind that my words might be interpreted like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Truth is truth, no matter what the source.
Yes, but the character of the expression can vary a bit, while the underlying essence is clearly the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
How can you judge truth by the source from which it came?
I don't judge truth.
Truth doesn't need to be judged; neither does anything else.
I've learned that there's a certain "vibe" to enlightened people that matters a lot more than any specific words they use.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
However, truth has no contradictions or inconsistencies.
But, as Carson pointed out .... they can *appear* to, in the realm of duality.
If you're in a boat being kicked up and down and back and forth by waves ... and you're trying to measure exactly how far you are from shore ... and you've convinced yourself you're not moving ........ the beach can look mighty inconsistent.
[:)]
As Adyashanti says: a flame never dances the same way twice.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Now please don't hate me.
I don't hate anyone.
[:)]
Nothing you've written has caused the tiniest flicker or disturbance; really.
It's all conversation; it's all fine.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
The tone in this post is becoming somewhat disconcerting as I do not want to argue, nor do I want be at odds with you or offend you.
Well, if you don't want to argue, I presume you won't.
I won't argue, you can't be at odds with me, and you can't offend me .... so no worries on that level.
I'm truly enjoying this conversation.
I'm weird that way.
Plus, this body-mind enjoys conversing.
Have you noticed?
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
The novelty of talking to an 'enlightened' person has not worn off and surely an 'enlightened' person has the detachment and presence of mind to deal with my mild challenges.
"Enjoy it while it lasts!" .... the way AYP is going, it hopefully won't be any kind of a rarity for long, and it may well include *you*.
Hopefully it will ..... the only way it won't is if your sincerity vanishes (doubtful, it would seem) ... or, if you stop practicing.
"PS" ..... what challenges?
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
And, I'd still like to ask you some questions, like, do you practice Adyshanti's methods or AYP's or have you quit practicing?
I never practiced Adyashanti's methods; he didn't have methods when I hung out with him; just teachings.
I don't practice "core" AYP, but "core AYP" led directly to what I do tend to practice daily .... and so, AYP was a very direct part of all yogic benefits realized here.
Yogani isn't kidding when he says "the guru is in you" .... it's true.
The inner guru is pratibha, higher intuition ... and when it guides you to do something different than direct teachings, you *know* .... and it was quite some time (well over two years, maybe closer to three) before I made any "inner guru" modifications at all .... and they're very close in "type" to AYP, just slightly different in form.
They're not practices now .... but as activities, they keep happening.
That may sound strange, but it's true .... and every "enlightened person" I've known or known of, does the same.
Part of it is, as Yogani says "for the good of all" ... but it my case it's more that that's the way it naturally happens, as opposed to a conscious altruism (and it may be that way for Yogani, too; you'd have to ask him) ... and stopping the activities would be more unnatural than continuing them, so the natural flow is for them to continue.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Again, thank you for the very stimulating conversation. :)
:)
TI
Thank you; very sincerely!!
You were worried about offending me, and I've been digging the mutual sincerity, the whole time I've been reading-writing.
The sincerity is where we meet; sincerity is what gets us home.
As Adya's teacher Arvis Justi said:
"Only the phonies don't get enlightened."
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Steven,
quote:
Hi Christi,
Thanks for the interesting post. But I wonder about people who have developed psychic abilities, Deeksha, ect, and yet still don't seem to have obtained Unity of Consciousness (great description btw).
Are they just examples of people that for whatever reason are extremely receptive to psychic energies in the same way that some people are more open to deep and blissful meditations?
Yes, I believe that some of these aspects can develop (and usually do) to a certain degree before the realization of unity consciousness. As you mention, the ability to transfer energy (diksha, or shaktipat) can come fairly early on. Also some limited psychic powers and a degree of radiance can develop before the unity stage.
From my own experience it is possible to have glimpses of the higher (celestial) realms before unity consciousness has become fully established, but I don't believe that the celestial realms become fully integrated in the awareness until after that stage.
So it isn't a clear cut thing in the sense of, this happens and then that happens. Very little in the process of spiritual awakening is really like that. It is more a process which is never ending, and always deepening in love.
quote:
If this is a natural process like you say then I can't wait to see where modern spiritual teachers like Yogani, Adyashanti, and Eckhart Tolle will be in the future.
Some people are acting as spiritual pioneers, such as the ones you mentioned. And they are helping to show the way to everyone else. But as I see it, it's really about all of us... our common destiny.
All, as one, united, in love. It doesn't get much more magical than that. [8D]
Christi
-
"Some people are acting as spiritual pioneers, such as the ones you mentioned."
Yeah, I feel like we are finally seeing some examples of truly Western teachers taking place. Not that there is anything wrong with the old Eastern style Guru/Master traditions, but it is nice to know that you can obtain realization in you living room and afterward still go grocery shopping.
-
quote:
Originally posted by stevenbhow
"Some people are acting as spiritual pioneers, such as the ones you mentioned."
Yeah, I feel like we are finally seeing some examples of truly Western teachers taking place. Not that there is anything wrong with the old Eastern style Guru/Master traditions, but it is nice to know that you can obtain realization in you living room and afterward still go grocery shopping.
Hi Steve, Christi & All,
Steve (I forget if you go by Steve or Steven; please let me know if you have a preference .... [:)] ) .... what you wrote above is exactly what I intended (and to intend) to convey with my original statements of encouragement, regarding enlightenment.
As some of you know, I've been drawn to spend a fair amount of time in the last couple of years, studying not only the world's mystical and yogic traditions ... but the correspondences between them, as well.
What I've found is: they're all simply symbol-sets of how consciousness actually is, and works.
We all actually are the consciousness that all enlightenment teachings (by whatever name "knowing and living our true nature" may be called) point to, and that all yogic teachings (by whatever names they may be called, including those found in Western esoteric traditions) help us reveal in our own experience.
As Kashmir Shaivism (Abhinavagupta, specifically) puts it so wisely and succinctly:
"What is not here is not anywhere."
The only difference between now, and other places and times, as far at the "spiritual journey" is concerned .... is that culture, and therefore, most (so-called) invidual lives are more externalized, and run at a faster pace.
On the one hand, this is less conducive to noticing how the fullness of consciousness is, and operates ...
... yet on the other hand, the contrast can be more dramatic, and highlight what needs to be seen.
Enlightenment really is for us all, and is who and what we each and all are, now.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman, :)
Thank you so much for the time and attention. :)
This morning as I sat in my SUV drinking my morning coffee before work, I looked out at the park and the trees in front of me. My consciousness became crystal clear, I had no thoughts and I could see the entire forest in the park through big eyes. I call it big eyes because it is silent, it is crystal clear, it does not feel like me, there is this love there for everything and there is an expanded periphery of vision. Since I've been communicating with you I've noticed that occaisionaly I will shift into this state like something that is way bigger than me is looking through my eyes. Then, when that effect goes away, I feel like a stiffled little me, cloudy and small and irrelevant. It is very interesting..
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And I think this is the source of the reason you've not been sure about some of the advaitic teachers, either ... I don't know that any of them ever displayed, or had the slightest interest in siddhis or superpowers.
This is helping my understanding tremendously. What I've realized is that it is possible to obtain siddhis through practices and not be enlightened and that it is possible to be enlightened and not obtain any siddhis.
quote:
Then, over the last (roughly) couple of years ... I went from experiences of nirvikalpa samadhi (a fancy term for "no form whatsoever, yet awareness remains") to sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi (a fancy term for experiencing daily life in unitive awareness; no subject-object division ... simply the wholeness of awareness, and the manifestations within it).
Kirtanman, if you don't mind me asking, what techniques did you use to enter nirvikalpa samadhi? (And if you say mantra repetition, how long is the duration of one repetition of the mantra; 1/2 second, 5 seconds etc). Or did you use steady concentrative focusing of attention style meditation?
quote:
A couple of nights ago, I was really sick (I hear about Adyashanti being sick, several years ago, and thought "Hmph; if he's enlightened, how come he's sick?"
There is always a danger that the mind reads something or hears about something, stores it latently and then manifests it at an opportune time. I believe that the fact that Gopi Krishna wrote about his harrowing experiences with kundalini has led to a manifestation of "if you don't get sick you don't have kundalini" type of group thought-form consciousness.
quote:
Form can only relate enlightenment to form, somehow.
Isn't that what siddhis are for? :)
quote:
And so, while anyone in the vicinity likely perceived a goat with sinus congestion engaging in unnatural congress with a poorly-working vacuum cleaner .... and while my abs engaged in another round of involuntary uddiyana (or whatever that's called), and my mouth, throat and nose wer{CENSORED FOR THE GOOD OF HUMAN KIND}iping up the floor, I had the passing thought:
"You'd think I could find *something* to be less than pleased about, here ..."
This is just too funny! Made me laugh :)
quote:
I was recently putting some attention on a body-part that didn't feel so good (in connection with the sickness I mentioned) ... attention alone heals.
Eckhart Tolle does say that placing consciousness in the body, on each part of the body before bed for example, is a way to heal the body.
quote:
Form is subsidiary to the formless; they can't be compared.
Form is the dualistic opposite of the formless; they need each other. See, I just compared them and identified a relationship between them. :)
quote:
If you read the words of Nisargadatta, or Ramana, or Adya ..... none of them do, either.
However, Nisargadatta did heal people earlier on and so did Ramana... Haven't heard of Adya or Tolle doing that..
quote:
Nisargadatta said it well, when someone asked him if he "knew" the weather in New York (they were in Mumbai, then Bombay).
He responded something like: "Whyy are you concerned with such things? If I want to know the weather in New York, I can look in a newspaper."
The questioner persisted, and asked about whether or non he could cultivated the ability ... and he responded:
"Of course; anything is possible with training. However, I have no interest."
Yes, but Nisargadatta did recognize that miracles exist (from I Am That):
quote:
Questioner: A friend of mine, a young man about twenty-five, was told that he is suffering from an incurable heart disease. He wrote to me that instead of slow death he preferred suicide. I replied to him that a disease incurable by Western medicine may be cured in some other way. There are yogic powers that can bring almost instantaneous changes in the human body. Effects of repeated fasting also verge on the miraculous. I wrote to him not to be in a hurry to die; rather to give a trial to other approaches.
There is a Yogi living not far from Bombay who possesses some miraculous powers. He has specialised in the control of the vital forces governing the body. I met some of his disciples and sent
through to the Yogi my friend’s letter and photo. Let us see what happens.
Maharaj: Yes, miracles often take place. But there must be the will to live. Without it the miracles will not happen.
Nisargadatta also said this:
quote:
Q: Are you also free from causality? Can you produce miracles?
M: The world itself is a miracle. I am beyond miracles -- I am absolutely normal. With me everything happens as it must. I do not interfere with creation. Of what use are small miracles to me when the greatest of miracles is happening all the time? Whatever you see it is always your own being that you see. Go ever deeper into yourself, seek within, there is neither violence nor non-violence in self-discovery. The destruction of the false is not violence.
You said:
quote:
What "happened" with Jesus, presuming Jesus "was historical", is .... what?
It's a thought, in your mind .... now.
All "past" is a thought, in your mind, now.
It all happens now, and only now.
What Jesus is, or was, is conceptual.
Even your meeting with Jesus is conceptual ... because it is a memory, now ... a mental form ..... conceptual.
Actually, I have a living relationship with Jesus. He is always there. I can ask him questions and he answers me, mostly with thumbs up or down but sometimes he produces scenes/objects/visions that have meaning in them or at a future time, become evident.
And, (I haven't told anyone this because I'm sure that it would put them over the edge and write me off as a looney tune,) but, in a past life I was at the crucifixion.. In that life Jesus healed my legs so I could walk once again... At the crucifixion, I saw three crosses on the hills. I was about 100 yards away from them. The sky was dark dark blue/black and full of ominous clouds. At one point, there appeared this brilliant white light in the sky and I knew that he had died. There was hardly anyone there and I thought, "we didn't really know who he was". I had to shut that past life regression down because it was just too incredulous.).
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
It is one thing to have a clever argument that prevents the display of siddhis, but it is another thing to possess those siddhis and hide them or pay them no notice. I think the latter would project more of an attitude of confidence, not denial, would it not? Caution is always advisable. The biggest siddhi the world has seen so far is the atomic bomb, and look at how many people that killed..
You lost me; either I don't have the requisite discernment siddhi ..... or it's getting late, here.
[8D]
All I am saying here is that within the limits of my new understanding of enlightenment, is that it seems to be possible to have unity consciousness and not have any siddhis. But hearing a reason for not admitting siddhis could mean, either that person has siddhis and does not wish to focus on them, or they do not have siddhis and they are hiding that fact.. And now I realize that perhaps it is probable that awakened people don't have siddhis and don't want them or aren't interested in them. I guess they may be scared of them too and their consequences. But I've always thought that healing was a good thing although I have read that healing can be construed as interfering or even depriving the sick person of a valueable learning experience whose purpose may have been to help them burn karma or become enlightened.
quote:
Seeing great distances from the heart: Not sure what this means.
It is a really easy technique. You assume easy posture, close your eyes and then pretend you are viewing the immediate surrounding environment from your heart. You feel it with the heart. I practiced this a few times. The first time I did this on the bank of a glorious river/trees/blue sky, suddenly an opening of crystal clear vision appeared directly before my face and I could see two people who were sunbathing about 100 yards away from this opening as if I was 3 feet from them! I call this heart viewing. It is a relatively easy siddhi for me. I was also doing a lot of heart meditations at the time.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_IceDuring some meditations I've experienced massive images of planes upon planes of existence. I was wondering if you've experienced the same.
Yes, I have; it's strange, now that you mention it; they all kind of resolved, simplified and smoothed out, I guess you could say; it's kind of an angle/view thing, I guess; dramatic and vast on the way "up" (i.e. the very scenery AYP and thousands of years of sacred teachings advise *against* paying attention to); simple and beautiful, just being here.
I guess I should have mentioned that I've experienced massive images of planes and planes of existence go whizzing by my third eye, like I was in a huge TV vacuum cleaner that was going to suck me out and burn me up. I believe that is what happened to Yogananda Paramahansa Yogi when he got his first taste of cosmic consciousness (and Gopi Krishna too - the expansion thing) But, now I'm thinking that the shift to unity consciousness is very subtle.
quote:
Truth doesn't need to be judged; neither does anything else.
For us mere mortals sitting at the base of the mountain looking up, we need to judge how much rope we will need, how much food to bring, what kind of clothes to wear and whether or not the weather is going to be good. I agree, once on the mountain top, who cares..
quote:
As Adyashanti says: a flame never dances the same way twice.
Gee, blow torches look pretty consistent to me.. :)
How does he know? Has he ever filmed it and millions of others to compare it to? That is like saying that no two snowflakes are exactly the same. Well, how do they know? That is something that is beyond empirical proof as it is impossible to check billions and billions of snowflakes. That becomes the safe haven: You can say anything you'd like within the aegis of unverifiable 'truths' and nobody can prove you right or wrong.. But really, with billions and billions of snowflakes, chances are that there are many that are exactly the same.
quote:
I don't practice "core" AYP, but "core AYP" led directly to what I do tend to practice daily .... and so, AYP was a very direct part of all yogic benefits realized here.
What was your routine? Did you do deep meditation? When you repeated the mantra, did you focus on it and release (the bubble technique) or did you treat the mantra like the object of concentration? Did you stretch the mantra out for 10 seconds or more, or did you just intend the mantra and watch it make it's way from the light down to manifest into the coarser and coarser levels of consciousness until it became a subvocalization?
And the last thing, did you write about your experience of awakening here on the forum? The exact experience? I tried to find it but you've written so many posts that I could not find it in the hours that I spent, nor have I found it yet. I'm looking for a story that begins with "I was sitting at the table, drinking my yogi tea, when all of a sudden..." :)
Again, thank you for the correspondence. I really appreciate your help and good nature.. :)
:)
TI
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
I can't really comment without being a bit more clear on what you're saying, other than to say that, as far as I know/am experiencing, enlightenment (which I'm basically using, as I believe Wayne is, too ... as a term for the permanent shift of identity from the concept-me to concept-free awareness, in ongoing experiencing) is different from "unity consciousness", at least as I've heard the term used, before.
Sorry, I forgot to reply to this at the time.
As I understand it, witness consciousness is what happens when identification shifts from identification with the content of the mind, to the awareness within which all form arises. So we no longer believe we are any conditioned form, but are that within which conditioned form becomes manifest. In the witness stage, there is still separation because for there to be a witness, there must be something which is witnessed. So in this stage we could still say things like: "My body/ mind did such and such, but it didn't affect me at all."
When the witness stage becomes established 24/7 there is the permanent shift of identity from form to pure awareness. Yogani has called this the first stage of enlightenment.
In unity consciousness (as I understand it), there is an expansion of consciousness beyond the witness to a state of oneness. The apparent separation between awareness and it's content dissolves and there is no longer a dissociative process between form and formlessness, between awareness and the content of awareness. We could no longer talk about the body and mind (or the sun, moon or stars for that matter), as separate from who or what we really are. Form is seen as the manifestation of the formless; arising from it, being supported by it, and dissolving back into it, whilst never being separate from it. This is where the Buddhist expression "form is formlessness, formlessness is form" comes from.
Christ consciousness as I understand it is the same thing as cosmic consciousness. As I mentioned above, it is the expansion of awareness to include the subtle celestial. I also believe (as I mentioned in another thread) that the subtle body becomes fully illuminated during the transition to Christ consciousness. This is why people sometimes recieve teachings from masters appearing in a body of divine glory, or celestial form, as TI is describing above with reference to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has simply attained Christ consciousness and is now able to appear at will to people using an illuminated form made up completely of divine light.
We know from what Adyashanti says that what he refers to as awakening (or sometimes as enlightenment) is possible without the development of ecstasy as a 24/7 experience. In Yogani's Self Inquiry book he says that full enlightenment is not possible without the merging of ecstasy and bliss, so we can tell from this that what Yogani calls full enlightenment must be something further down the road from what Adyashanti is talking about. Personally I would say that Adyashanti is talking about unity consciousness when he talks about awakening and when Yogani talks about full enlightenment he is referring to Christ consciousness.
This is not to say that Yogani is at a higher stage of realization than Adyashanti, or vis-versa, just that one is pointing people to one stage of awakening, and another, to another stage.
We could delineate further grades, or stages to the process of awakening (as I believe the Kabbalists have done). But for me, these few are enough for now.
I hope that helps to explain what I mean by the terms I am using.
Christi
-
Thank you all for the amazing insights...I bow to you all... [:)]
Much Love to You
-
You just need to distinguish between naked, clear, vivid awareness versus the thoughtstream.
Even Ramana Maharishi said his thoughtstream STILL EXISTED, and within still contained many "evil" thoughts.
But the thoughtstream is just a rope pretending to be a snake.
-
Hi Christi,
Thanks for this; it was very helpful (I wasn't sure how clearly I was going to end up "getting" what you were saying, but I feel like I pretty much do, now).
[:)]
Just as my words may (and, per some of the discussion elsewhere in this thread, do) end up sounding far different than what I intended to convey ... this is true for all of us (from either the writing side, the reading side, or both) .... and, since you and I have posted back and forth here at the forum, and have read a lot of each other's posts ... I was fairly confident that you weren't saying something as "confusingly different" (to me, I mean; not saying you were being confusing .... solely that I was confused! [:)]) ... as it seemed like, to me.
This post cleared up about 95% of that confusion; and so, I really appreciate the extra bit of time you took to clarify.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
When the witness stage becomes established 24/7 there is the permanent shift of identity from form to pure awareness. Yogani has called this the first stage of enlightenment.
Yes ... this part, at least, syncs up with the recent shift in my (quote-unquote) experience / identity-shift that I've been outlining ... at length [8D] .... in this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
In unity consciousness (as I understand it), there is an expansion of consciousness beyond the witness to a state of oneness. The apparent separation between awareness and it's content dissolves and there is no longer a dissociative process between form and formlessness, between awareness and the content of awareness. We could no longer talk about the body and mind (or the sun, moon or stars for that matter), as separate from who or what we really are. Form is seen as the manifestation of the formless; arising from it, being supported by it, and dissolving back into it, whilst never being separate from it. This is where the Buddhist expression "form is formlessness, formlessness is form" comes from.
Yes, this also. Qualitatively, this is very different from "the witness" or "being in awareness" simply becoming permanent, and identity/self therefore "feeling like awareness".
There is a fundamental shift, both quantitatively (permanent change in sense of identity, rather than temporary shift in state) and qualitatively (the very nature of experiencing shifts in a way that is far more subtle-yet-normal than limited mind can conceive of as "enlightenment" involving .... yet in a way that is utterly pervasive, complete and life-changing, as well).
It's very much a "must be experienced to be understood" thing.
As I mentioned a little while ago in that thread --> Shanti's Movie Screen (http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=6729) illustration, along with her Harmony poem, both go a long way toward simply clarifying this, I'd say.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Christ consciousness as I understand it is the same thing as cosmic consciousness. As I mentioned above, it is the expansion of awareness to include the subtle celestial.
Any more detail you can provide on this would be appreciated.
And please know: I'm not just "grilling you for detail" for the heck of it .... as you know, I'm "into" understanding the correspondences between various maps and models, because having/communicating those correspondences clearly can offer two major benefits to those on the path to revealing enlightenment in their own experience, namely:
*Clarity on how consciousness works, and how different planes of consciousness can be experienced, can be gained much more clearly, via the experiencing of a more full range of consciousness, which arises from the expansions of consciousnesses resulting from continued practices -- combined with a clearer understanding of the "overall framework". Currently, there's a lot of detail on some aspects of "yogic unfoldment" ... and less on others, and so ... clarity on some of the correspondences can be helpful to us all, in terms of the overall "knowledge-base", if you will.
(And, since I've "dissed" knowledge a lot, recently/in this thread, I'll clarify: what I'm referring to above is more along the lines of "a quick glance at the map" ... which is easier when one understands some of the nuances of reading slightly-different types of maps ... and so ... "hence this discussion". [:)])
Understanding where/how the "same things are being said" ... or not .... can serve as a powerful resource, helping any map-glances to be quick, as opposed to (anyone) falling into the trap of "but I read here" and "but then, I read there" ..... while not understanding that the two different sets of written expression (whether forum post, book, or ancient wisdom tradition .... or a combination of the three ..... [8D]) ..... may be expressing states/planes of consciousness that are essentially the same .... but simply illustrated in different ways, and from different angles.
Which is all my Kirtanmaniacal way of saying:
"Ah ha! It seems we may not be far apart on our perceptions of enlightenment/post-enlightenment/unity consciousness/etc. .... after all! Good deal ...."
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I also believe (as I mentioned in another thread) that the subtle body becomes fully illuminated during the transition to Christ consciousness. This is why people sometimes recieve teachings from masters appearing in a body of divine glory, or celestial form, as TI is describing above with reference to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has simply attained Christ consciousness and is now able to appear at will to people using an illuminated form made up completely of divine light.
If you wouldn't mind, could you please get just a bit more specific on what you mean here, when and how it might happen, etc.
What I'm still not quite "getting", is this:
When ground of being/"being the screen" is the experience, and is the sense of self ... along with the sense of knowing/completion which is "part and parcel" of it ... there's sense of potential relative development, which will, of course, continue to unfold/flower (as Adyashanti said, so enthusiastically: "It never stops!" ... every moment is a new creation).
For instance, are you saying that "after enlightenment" ... that there's still (in, as you say, your belief) this full/further illumination of/in subtle form, which occurs, as part of the "set unfolding" for each/all of us (as I believe you said)?
The reason for my question:
I've never heard any of the non-dual sages who I resonate with mention this sort of thing at all (one way or the other; it's simply not mentioned) ......... which doesn't affect any sense I have of whether it's true, or not .... again: my purpose is purely to "connect the dots" as best I can .... the goal being not to gain further clarity for myself (there's really no sense of need for that; there's very much an ease with "what's going to unfold is going to unfold", with zero concern for the details) ...
... but to be able to clearly communicate how one set of experiences/consciousness/development is likely to occur .... in the same way that Yogani/AYP has done, to date (and which many of the other teachers many of us resonate with have, as well ... although AYP has done a specifically clear/straightforward "no frills" job of it, I'd say, especially for those of us in and from modern Western culture (i.e. Kashmir Shaivism has done the same, but for those unfamiliar with Sanskrit, and/or the symbolism of the various deities, etc. ... its models can still seem exotic, foreign and/or confusing; however, Kashmir Shaivism is essentially "AYP, 10th Century Kashmir Style [:)]).
As well as to bring clarity to the specific areas, that a few of us here (with/at AYP) are beginning to experience, more fully (other than "just Yogani").
<--- Which isn't a commentary on "who is where", consciousness-wise, in any way; I'm simply saying that the characteristics of enlightenment as Yogani outlines them, used to be well outside the experience of any other AYPers ... or, at least any who discuss such things publicly ... until very recently.
Now, that more of us are stepping into the experiencing of these things, we can offer additional clarity on some of the nuances .... and, it sounds as though what you're saying, with your sense of what unfolds after unity consciousness ... may well help that additional clarity.
However, I'm not quite "grokking" it all, just yet ..... hence all these questions.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
We know from what Adyashanti says that what he refers to as awakening (or sometimes as enlightenment) is possible without the development of ecstasy as a 24/7 experience.
I'm not sure that's exactly the case, as much as that Adyashanti doesn't emphasize the experiential characteristics, in detail ... per the fact that he purposely emphasizes, and says that he feels the need to emphasize, that "enlightenment is not an experience".
I don't see that as "right or wrong" as an approach, per se .... and I've found the combination of what Yogani says, and what Adya says, to be helpful, in combination.
My point is: knowing Adya's teachings fairly well, I don't think that the fact that he doesn't emphasize ecstasy or bliss as part of enlightenment, doesn't mean that he's specifically stating that enlightenment is "is possible without the development of ecstasy as a 24/7 experience".
I would say he's very likely simply not commenting on the felt, experiential aspects at all.
I've been at several live satsangs where people have asked him, in more detail, about the "felt experiencing" ... and he always confirms that bliss, ecstasy, peace, love, stillness, etc. .... are "part of the program" ... in a very similar manner to what Yogani says, in my view ... while always (Adya) still emphasizing that enlightenment is knowing your true nature, and is not tied to the qualities or feeling tone (a Buddhist term he sometimes uses) of any experience.
I get why Adya feels the need to do this; many people have magnificent experiences .... and/or a sustained set of them, or a shift in state .... that turns out not to be permanent, and they realize (as the experiences shift/fade/change ... as experiences always do) that they weren't "enlightened" after all.
Adya has emphasized this, per his own experiences, prior to enlightenment ... where, many times, something so marvelous would happen, and he would feel like: "THIS has GOTTA be it!!"
And he says that the "greatest grace" he had been given was this "little voice" that would (effectively) whisper: "No; not yet ..... keep going ...."
I can concur with this, 100%.
My unfolding was very similar, including several "THIS has GOTTA be it!!" experiences .... which, candidly, are laughable in retrospect .... especially the idea that any single experience, or set of them .... could "mean I was enlightened".
Fittingly, as I've mentioned .... the permanent identity-shift happened so subtly ... that I essentially "realized" (it) after-the-fact!
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
In Yogani's Self Inquiry book he says that full enlightenment is not possible without the merging of ecstasy and bliss, so we can tell from this that what Yogani calls full enlightenment must be something further down the road from what Adyashanti is talking about. Personally I would say that Adyashanti is talking about unity consciousness when he talks about awakening and when Yogani talks about full enlightenment he is referring to Christ consciousness.
Again, I respectfully disagree ... not in any "he's right, and he's wrong" OR in any "no, he's farther along, he's less so" (notice I'm not naming names; I have only the greatest sense of affinity, friendship and respect with both Yogani and Adyashanti, and they've both had very direct bearing on (literally) every meaningful aspect of my/non-my life and experiencing [:)] ... including (quote-unquote, though still actual) enlightenment ... and so, for me "they're both right!" (Not "about anything" ... just ... both right. [:D]).
And So:
Again, I would say that Adyashanti and Yogani both experience enlightenment in essentially the same way, and that they just articulate their experiencing and views of enlightenment, in slightly different ways .... with Adyashanti having a repeatedly-stated priority of avoiding discussion of the experiential nuances .... which could give the impression that Yogani and he are talking about two different levels of enlightenment/consciousness .... when they're actually referring to the same thing:
Knowing yourself as formless awareness, as opposed to any limitation of form, thereby precluding any "relapses" into misidentification with the distortions of the ego-idea, and so, living each moment free from the distortions of the ego-idea.
Any other description or emphasis is nuance, rather than talking about a different level of being/enlightenment, I would say.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
This is not to say that Yogani is at a higher stage of realization than Adyashanti, or vis-versa, just that one is pointing people to one stage of awakening, and another, to another stage.
Again, my view is: "pointing to the same stage; articulating somewhat differently."
If you still feel the way you do (that they're pointing to different stages), I'd be curious as to why (as in: I'd genuinely like to discuss it; I don't have any attachment to my current view ... I'm always about clarity/actuality).
A key reason I feel the way I do is:
Enlightened people tend to consistently behave, and express themselves, especially if they're teaching about enlightenment, in a very similar and consistent manner.
If you look at the words of Yogani, Adyashanti, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, etc. ... allowing for slight nuances of culture and specifics, to me they express themselves, and "what enlightenment is", in a manner that is (to me) essentially identical.
Another key reason for my view, is:
Current experiencing here syncs up, pretty much exactly, with how the four teachers named above, and several others with whom I resonate, have described enlightenment ... and so, the sense of "sameness" in the essential teaching seems the same .... along with the fact I can now confirm its accuracy.
One of its main qualities is: a sense of completion; of knowing, and of actually being the experiencing awareness which is prior to (a "super-set", if you will) and beyond all states and levels.
Which isn't to disagree with the model/view of yours we're discussing, by the way .... it's to say that formless awareness is the ground of being, and all states/levels/experiences/forms arise from it ... which, it seems to me, you're saying as well.
If you don't see this the same way, I'd just like to understand your view more clearly.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
We could delineate further grades, or stages to the process of awakening (as I believe the Kabbalists have done). But for me, these few are enough for now.
I agree; more delineation often leads to confusion, actually .... which may seem a bit at odds with some of the other things I've said in this post, but it's not ... the clarity I referred to is more about how the pieces fit ... connecting the dots, as I said .... in order to outline the clearest possible map, for us all.
An accurate map from (for example), San Francisco to New York ... will involve some major points along the way .... but (hopefully! [:)]) won't (and needn't, which is my point) involve mapping every yard/metre of highway along the way, in exceptional detail.
There's a lot of imagination about "what happens" or "what might" on the "way" to enlightenment .... which limited-mind loves to gorge itself into stupor on .... and often, either miss entirely that the whole point is know our true nature, what we actually are ......... and/or ...... become lost and looping in aspects of the "journey" which may not be pertinent, and, in many cases, not real, in anyway.
And, I'm saying all that in the spirit/presumption that we're in agreement that it's about providing an accurate map, and helping other yogis and yoginis to avoid some of the pitfalls.
THAT is one of the most wonderful aspects of being alive now, and of being able to even have this discussion (Yogani mentions what I'm about to say, in the lessons, as well) .... we're no longer caught in the narrow "information silo" which has limited most spiritual-journeyers, throughout the entire history of the world.
We have to opportunity to provide not only encouragement ... but a simple, accurate and direct map home, as well.
Thanks again, Christi; again: your post was truly very helpful!
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by Parallax
Thank you all for the amazing insights...I bow to you all... [:)]
Much Love to You
[:)]
_/\\_
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Kirtanman, :)
Thank you so much for the time and attention. :)
No worries; this conversation is being created by both of us, you know.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This morning as I sat in my SUV drinking my morning coffee before work, I looked out at the park and the trees in front of me. My consciousness became crystal clear, I had no thoughts and I could see the entire forest in the park through big eyes. I call it big eyes because it is silent, it is crystal clear, it does not feel like me, there is this love there for everything and there is an expanded periphery of vision. Since I've been communicating with you I've noticed that occaisionaly I will shift into this state like something that is way bigger than me is looking through my eyes. Then, when that effect goes away, I feel like a stiffled little me, cloudy and small and irrelevant. It is very interesting..
[:)]
Yes ... I believe it was Meister Eckhart (German Christian Mystic from the middle ages, from which Eckhart Tolle took the first part of his name) who said:
"The eye through which I see God, and the eye through which God sees me ... is the same."
Ken Wilber calls it "Big Mind"; different teachers describe it in various ways ... but it's effectively the "trailer" (preview) to an experiencing of life with much more peace, equanimity and relaxed expansiveness.
That experience, and the recent arising of it, is all due to resonance occurring within what you actually are, now.
[:)]
None of this is outside you; none of this.
[:)]
The "stifled little me" (good-term, by the way, for all non-aware consciousness; we've all "been there", fer shure ...! [:)]) is your incorrect idea of yourself ... but it's been so methodically reinforced, essentially every moment of your remembered life (i.e. every moment except this one) that it takes a bit of unclutching (yoga practices and inquiry ... including simple noticing/relaxing/releasing).
Once there's a sense that this is true, there's usually the experience of "I want to be done with this stifled little me!" .... which is more protest and confusion from the stifled little me.
Just be easy with it all.
The relaxed vastness is a good sign.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And I think this is the source of the reason you've not been sure about some of the advaitic teachers, either ... I don't know that any of them ever displayed, or had the slightest interest in siddhis or superpowers.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This is helping my understanding tremendously. What I've realized is that it is possible to obtain siddhis through practices and not be enlightened and that it is possible to be enlightened and not obtain any siddhis.
Yes ... you get it!!
[:)]
The two (siddhis, enlightenment) are essentially unrelated .... and it's so easy for limited mind to misinterpret "otherwise".
Siddhis seem amazing and miraculous, so does enlightenment ... and so, it must be part of the same thing; actually, thought ... "not".
All form, whether a flake of dry skin on the tip of your nose .... or performance of the most magnificent miracle, happens within ... and is dependent upon the original awareness we each and all actually are, now.
This is a great way to say it, too ("it is possible to obtain siddhis through practices and not be enlightened and that it is possible to be enlightened and not obtain any siddhis"); if I'd been able to do so .... this would have been a much shorter conversation!
[:D]
As in: we're both bringing good stuff to the table here; true enlightenment dialog is about mutuality; connection ... never a one-way flow.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Kirtanman, if you don't mind me asking, what techniques did you use to enter nirvikalpa samadhi? (And if you say mantra repetition, how long is the duration of one repetition of the mantra; 1/2 second, 5 seconds etc). Or did you use steady concentrative focusing of attention style meditation?
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is more a "natural result" of meditation, than something one enters by using any technique.
The duration of mantra ... or even the specific mantra itself, has nothing to do with it (experiencing nirvikalpa samadhi) .... truly.
Nirvikalpa Samadhi (maintaining awareness without any form to reflect it ... including object, subject or perception) is a fancy term for a very simple reality:
Thought-self has been conditioned to identify with form for a lifetime (body, feelings, thoughts, "others", and so on) .... and this conditioning to identify with form has been deeply reinforced, moment-by-moment in nearly every moment of life.
And thus, it has created the memory of a sense of self being a body-mind ... partial, alone, separate, incomplete.
The experiencing body-mind can't help this; it's essentially a GUI (Graphic User Interface) .... your computer "desktop" (main screen), or your web browser appears as it is programmed/coded to appear.
Same with the body-mind ... including the incorrect sense of limited self.
The Good News: reprogramming is possible, as evidenced by the world's mystical and yogic traditions all around the world and throughout all of history .... and as currently verified by neuroscience.
Neuroplasticity was considered, until the last handful of years ... to be the exception (with respect to certain changes/modifications which take place in the brain, in response to activity and environment).
Now, neuroplasticity .... and bioplasticity .... are known to be the rule.
The body-mind is literally programmable.
You want enlightenment?
You *are* enlightenment.
As I've been saying in this thread; original awareness ... and its related full-spectrum experience of consciousness, from the infinite formless through to the finite physical ... and back home again ... {to the infinite formless now} .. is what is always already here.
The only difference between (so-called) enlightenment and (so-called) unenlightenment, is that "in enlightenment" ... the original awareness, and the full spectrum of consciousness, is experienced consciously.
In "unenlightenment" .... attention/awareness is dreaming that objective consciousness (focus of attention outward, focus on form) is all there is, now. This is reinforced by the ever looping dream of memory now (aka "the past") and imagination now (aka "the future").
And so, the *only* difference between enlightenment and unenlightenment is how much of the full range of original awareness is experienced now.
As memory can faux-confirm for you, you've spent a lifetime programming and being programmed to experience unenlightenment (aka attention artificially weighted toward externalization).
This would be fine, except it involves the perception of suffering.
And life is so much nicer without suffering (which is all enlightenment is: freedom from the misperception called ego, and its effects, aka suffering).
The "antidote" is inner silence.
As inner silence melts away the freezing of identification with form .. it is experienced that, for one ... division between "subject, object and perception" is artificial.
Experiencing this is called savikalpa ("with form") samadhi.
Then, as inner silence/awareness expands (is experienced) a bit more, and more conditioning is melted in its living light ..... it is experienced that awareness does not require an object (never did, actually .... [:)]) ... which is called nirvikalpa samadhi, asamprajnata samadhi, pure bliss conciousness, nirvana, "a nice way to enjoy eternity for a few minutes now", etc.
[:)]
Enlightenment is simply the restoration of the natural state, the natural balance that from the side of duality, could be called "the union of the pairs of opposites" (aka objectivity/subjectivity) ... which, when balanced, don't exist .... i.e. when there's a certain balance between oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms ... we no longer think/ speak of/ experience "hydrogen atoms" and "oxygen atoms" .... but rather .... water.
And so ..... "practices replace the errant code of memory-imagination with the elegant and correct code of original-awareness-now" .... literally.
Simple, formless awareness ... experienced at first as inner silence and/or presence now ... gives way to noticing the pure formlessness of the gap between every perception (see Vinjnanabhairava Tantra and/or Yoga Spandakarika for details) ... and the dissolution of the artificial division of subject-object-perception (savikalpa samadhi) ... and the dissolution of the perceived inability to disengage awareness from form and remain conscious (nirvikalpa samadhi) .... and finally, the dissolution of the perceived inability to enjoy the freedom of the full range of original awareness you actually are, now (enlightenment).
All those conditions/experiences/knowing (<- in the case of the last item) ... are the same ... it's just a matter of how much attention is artificially weighted toward the objective/"external") ......... enlightenment has never been absent; it is simply not consciously known.
Awareness/Silence literally reprograms the body-mind .... it changes neurochemistry, which changes endocrine function ... which changes the experiencing and the capabilities of experiencing flowing through-as a given body-mind, now.
Just as taking up a new sport changes brain and body, or learning a new language, or learning to play a musical instrument ... changes brain and body.
Meditation and yoga (including bhakti, inquiry, kundalini-related practices, and so on) ... change brain and body, and created a realization-rich and enlightenment-capable environment.
Once this happens, enlightenment is experienced ... it was always already here, anyway.
Enlightenment isn't *reached* .... unenlightenment is de-bugged*!
(*"De-bug" is a software term, for any who may not know: it simply means "fixing errors, so that the software program functions as it is designed to function".)
[:D]
And so, how did I "enter nirvikalpa samadhi?"
AYP Deep Meditation.
That's it.
No kidding.
[:)]
In the beginning of meditation practice, the energy of a specific mantra can be experienced as different from another .... but ultimately, it's not the mantra the matters ... being ... without the infusion of inner silence/awareness, as Abhinavagupta says "merely articulated sounds, not having the power to bend even a blade of grass".
It's the *process* of mantra meditation .... taking a lifetime of unceasing focus on form ... and practicing focus-release (mantra-pause, mantra-pause ... even if the pause isn't noticed at first ... it works its way in .... because the silence *is* the underlying awareness we actually are).
And so, consistency with daily practices in what matters.
This isn't simply the "AYP Party Line", by the way; it's just that from the side of the completion, "how it all actually works" seems a lot more obviously and simple.
All of this is about how consciousness actually is, and works; there's no magic to it ... and no magic bullet. If you want to develop muscle tone and mass ... engage in resistance training; if you want to optimize it, factor in a balanced aerobic/cardio routine, as well.
If you want enlightenment, sit and meditate twice daily, as per AYP or similar program guidelines; watching-breath meditation, or some of the other modifications Yogani has posted in the new lessons can certainly work equally well.
It's not about the form of the meditation as much as it is about what you're doing with your mind; allowing silence to peek through ... and focusing on a single form (mantra, yantra, breath, etc.) ... to break the incessant yammering of discursive thinking, at least for a little while, each day.
If you used muscles randomly in daily life ... not much happens.
If you simply do reps with free weights for a few months ... an amazing amount happens.
"Like that."
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
A couple of nights ago, I was really sick (I heard about Adyashanti being sick, several years ago, and thought "Hmph; if he's enlightened, how come he's sick?"
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
There is always a danger that the mind reads something or hears about something, stores it latently and then manifests it at an opportune time. I believe that the fact that Gopi Krishna wrote about his harrowing experiences with kundalini has led to a manifestation of "if you don't get sick you don't have kundalini" type of group thought-form consciousness.
Ah ... sorry .......... I didn't even *remotely* mean it like this; it wasn't connected (my sickness and Adyashanti's).
I had meant to circle back and clarify .... but managed not to.
[:)]
What I meant was:
Per all the siddhi-related aspects of the discussion, I (rightly or wrongly) anticipated a "if you're enlightened, how come you got sick?" question ... primarily because *I* used to have that same question .... and so, I mentioned Adya's illness, and my ego-memory's reaction at the time, in passing ... and (as I think I did say) ... a pre-comment to the fact that illness goes with the body-mind; and enlightenment does not preclude illness in the body-mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Form can only relate enlightenment to form, somehow.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Isn't that what siddhis are for? :)
I think it's more "that's what siddhis are *from*" ... [:D]
(Form relating enlightenment to form.)
Things like siddhis get "kicked around", in mind, because form presumes enlightenment has got to be like regular life-in-form, only infinitely better.
It is .... via realizing the utter independence of true nature *from* form ... not by developing super-powers with relating *to* form, which have nothing to do with knowing true nature, and are more likely to prevent enlightenment than reveal it.
Why?
Again: siddhis make it very tough to release all ideas of separate self, entirely.
They're best ignored.
Go for the gold of enlightenment; then, if siddhis are still of interest, you can approach that interest with full awareness and knowing self.
Otherwise, you may gain great powers .... but lose the only siddhi that actually matters: enlightenment itself ... by becoming even more mired in the universes of form.
It's not worth it.
That's why yogic writings warn against siddhis so strongly.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And so, while anyone in the vicinity likely perceived a goat with sinus congestion engaging in unnatural congress with a poorly-working vacuum cleaner .... and while my abs engaged in another round of involuntary uddiyana (or whatever that's called), and my mouth, throat and nose wer{CENSORED FOR THE GOOD OF HUMAN KIND}iping up the floor, I had the passing thought:
"You'd think I could find *something* to be less than pleased about, here ..."
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This is just too funny! Made me laugh :)
Awesome; I like it when that happens .... [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Form is subsidiary to the formless; they can't be compared.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Form is the dualistic opposite of the formless; they need each other. See, I just compared them and identified a relationship between them. :)
You're speaking of definition; I'm speaking from actuality.
And I'm not saying your view is wrong ... on any level involving form, what you write is true.
The absolute ... source ... true nature .... is where your statement above is not true.
Form requires the formless.
The formless does not require form, except in duality.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
"Of course; anything is possible with training. However, I have no interest."
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Yes, but Nisargadatta did recognize that miracles exist (from I Am That):
Yes, I know; that was the point of my quote as well, basically.
Sure, miracles can exist; sure, "anything is possible with training" .... and, enlightenment is unrelated .... and ... there seems to be a theme of the "very clearly enlightened" not having any particular interest in miracles or siddhis.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Nisargadatta also said this:
Q: Are you also free from causality? Can you produce miracles?
M: The world itself is a miracle. I am beyond miracles -- I am absolutely normal. With me everything happens as it must. I do not interfere with creation. Of what use are small miracles to me when the greatest of miracles is happening all the time? Whatever you see it is always your own being that you see. Go ever deeper into yourself, seek within, there is neither violence nor non-violence in self-discovery. The destruction of the false is not violence.
Thank You, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj; that's exactly what I've been trying to say!
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
And now I realize that perhaps it is probable that awakened people don't have siddhis and don't want them or aren't interested in them. I guess they may be scared of them too and their consequences. But I've always thought that healing was a good thing although I have read that healing can be construed as interfering or even depriving the sick person of a valueable learning experience whose purpose may have been to help them burn karma or become enlightened.
Fear has nothing to do with it; if there's any fear experienced in enlightenment, it's an extremely temporary natural reaction of the body-mind .... for example, if you're driving, and another car almost hits you ... there can be a rush of fear in the body-mind ... but that has nothing to do with me (actual experiencing awareness).
Conceptual-mental fears don't exist in enlightenment, because they're an effect of the mistaken idea called "limited self".
When the dream of partiality disappears .... so does conceptual fear.
And so, non-interest in siddhis isn't fear-based .... it's more, as Adyashanti says:
"I know what I need to know, when I need to know it" .... which could just as well be said: "I have whatever I need to have, if and when I need to have it."
If I don't have it ... it means I didn't need it.
This applies to money, relationships, siddhis .... you name it.
[:)]
Basically, ego-self is a reaction of the body-mind, trying to control everything, including its own experience ... because it mistakenly connects them with survival (whatever that might be .... [8D]).
If something is going to be in charge of your life "mistaken idea of a separate self which can only be reaction from past conditioning" ... or "ego" for short .... *might* not be the best choice (quote-unquote).
Another "Adya-ism" I love:
"Life knows what it's doing."
In a nutshell: you don't have to figure out siddhis or healing or right or wrong or anything else; your own best thinking can't give you an answer anyway .... it doesn't know; it can't know ...... it's a walking iteration of "2+2=3" ... and 2+2 does not equal 3 ... no matter how much one demands or manipulates that it be so.
And so .... the entire iteration of 2+2=3 is seen to be a false equation ... and is released.
Then/now ... "Ahhh .... Peace".
It's very nice; the whole "it's real" thing helps it be experienced as even better.
And reality is whole.
All reality contributes to the whole ....... all reality; look around you:
Trees do it; birds do it; oceans do it; bees do it ..... etc. etc. etc.
The only thing in the entire universe that *doesn't* do it is the erroneous idea of *needing* (money, power, siddhis, chocolate, justification, a great high, a good lay, a bad motor-scooter, pleasure, pain, a teddy bear .... you name it; the list is endless) ....... called the human ego.
When it finally dissolves .... there's no limit to what is possible .... yet .... no thinking about what is possible, either; what would be the point; I am possibility .... Shakti (ability) is my shine.
[:)]
What's needed is here.
Acorns create oaks which create acorns.
Enlightenment creates enlightenment.
If siddhis are needed for creating enlightenment, I have them; if they're not ... they literally don't cross my mind; why would they?
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
But, now I'm thinking that the shift to unity consciousness is very subtle.
I never thought I'd use the following two words together, but:
Good thinking!
[:D]
And ... it's a bit tough to find the best words for what goes on with enlightenment (not one of my favorites, in the first place ....) ... but unity consciousness can be a bit problematic, as well.
Unity consciousness is a relative term, as far as literal meaning .... the opposite of duality consciousness (and oxymoron, if ever there was one ... [8D]).
However, original awareness is .... original.
It precedes everything, including unity and duality.
There's no unity/non-unity ... there's just awareness ... formless, original.
All arises from this that I am ... including consciousness; including unity.
And yet, not in as nearly a big-deal way as it might sound.
It's more like this:
Imagine spending all your life thinking you're the content of your eyesight ... you are what you see.
Then, you feel that there's more to it that that ... and it would be ridiculous to say you are what you see; it's obvious: you're your eyes.
Then ... it seems yet deeper .... not your eyes .... your ability to see, itself.
But no ... yet a bit deeper ..... it's not the eye that sees ... not even the sense of sight itself ... but the underlying experiencing awareness.
And so, you could have said (instead of "unity consciousness") "sight consciousness" ... and I could have said: "Well, that's a relative term; both sight and sight consciousness arise from the actual, original awareness ... which is what *actually* sees."
It's a "full spectrum of awareness/nature of awareness" thing ... not a big-deal, supernatural thing.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Truth doesn't need to be judged; neither does anything else.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
For us mere mortals sitting at the base of the mountain looking up, we need to judge how much rope we will need, how much food to bring, what kind of clothes to wear and whether or not the weather is going to be good. I agree, once on the mountain top, who cares..
1. There are no mere mortals; or mortals for that matter ...... it's a dream; spiritual teachings have been shouting that from the rooftops for millenia, now ... and it's true.
2. Wrong end of the mountain. As Adyashanti also says ..... the enlightened are those sitting at the bottom of the mountain, passing out the rope, and pylons and supplies ... and saying "Have fun; see ya back here when you figure out there's nothing at the top that's not here at the bottom ...".
*Seriously*.
Enlightenment isn't where we end up; it's where we start ........ that's why I call it original awareness.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
As Adyashanti says: a flame never dances the same way twice.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Gee, blow torches look pretty consistent to me.. :)
Oy.
Dude.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
How does he know? Has he ever filmed it and millions of others to compare it to?
You hear that?
Yeah ... that.
THAT is the sound of Kirtanman methodically bonking his own head on the computer table in front of him.
Bonk
Bonk
Bonk
Ahhh .... much better.
Now then, let us continue .........
[:D]
And .... that's what I get for paraphrasing.
Here's the original quote:
You may say my teaching is confusing
because I am not consistent. But I say:
"Does a flame ever leap up from the fire
exactly the same way twice?"
The radiance of truth and life
does not fit into conceptual pockets.
It is always leaping out in celebration of itself.
~Adyashanti, My Secret Is Silence, p.127
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
And the last thing, did you write about your experience of awakening here on the forum? The exact experience?
Not yet.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I tried to find it but you've written so many posts that I could not find it in the hours that I spent, nor have I found it yet.
With respect for the effort you made …. an overview of my awakening/realization is not worth spending hours looking for …. creating your own awakening/realization, however, is worth whatever it takes.
Whatever it takes.
Nothing else matters .... not even a little.
"PS" ... the most detailed overview I've given of the *process* ... how the unfolding went and tends to go ... is in this thread ...... I think it's in one of the posts to Christi, but I don't recall for sure.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I'm looking for a story that begins with "I was sitting at the table, drinking my yogi tea, when all of a sudden..." :)
[:D]
.. people are gonna think we have some clandestine sponsorship deal with Yogi Tea ....!!
I get what you mean, though:
"I'm looking for a story that begins with "I was sitting at the table, drinking my yogi tea, when all of a sudden...
.... I remembered … it was time for my morning meditation session .... because I knew that daily meditation .... developing experience of inner silence, is the most important pillar of any path to enlightenment .... and ..... *voila* .... in less than a decade .... actual enlightenment!!
And .... what's even more amazing .... upon realizing enlightenment, I noticed .... an interest in writing posts, an affinity for sitting around and chanting in Sanskrit at high volume, enjoyment of the music of LIVE and Matisyahu, enjoyable conversations with friends and family; a tendency toward dorky humor ... in short ... everything is exactly like always ... except, now, it's all perfect.
"THE BEGINNING"
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Again, thank you for the correspondence. I really appreciate your help and good nature.. :)
:)
TI
No problem; likewise.
And it's fun.
And it beats the crap of me all of sudden having to sit around in an orange robe in full lotus, telling you to come back after you do a hundred thousand prostrations around the AYP Site.
[8D]
And I'm not "guru-fying" myself, by the way.
It's more like I'm .....utterly joking.
[:D]
If anything ... "via the siddhi of cyber-osmosis" [8D] ... I've received Yogani's non-transmission of *Non*-Guru-ness.
The guru is in you .... the rest of us are just good friends.
[:)]
_/\\_
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
Christ consciousness as I understand it is the same thing as cosmic consciousness. As I mentioned above, it is the expansion of awareness to include the subtle celestial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any more detail you can provide on this would be appreciated.
The subtle celestial is the home of angelic beings, ascended masters and other higher beings. It is a range of subtle realms extending from above the physical to the infinite realms of pure spiritual light. So someone in a Christed state of consciousness has access to all these realms of being. This is what my yoga teacher meant when he said "I live amongst the Gods".
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
I also believe (as I mentioned in another thread) that the subtle body becomes fully illuminated during the transition to Christ consciousness. This is why people sometimes recieve teachings from masters appearing in a body of divine glory, or celestial form, as TI is describing above with reference to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has simply attained Christ consciousness and is now able to appear at will to people using an illuminated form made up completely of divine light.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you wouldn't mind, could you please get just a bit more specific on what you mean here, when and how it might happen, etc.
What I'm still not quite "getting", is this:
When ground of being/"being the screen" is the experience, and is the sense of self ... along with the sense of knowing/completion which is "part and parcel" of it ... there's sense of potential relative development, which will, of course, continue to unfold/flower (as Adyashanti said, so enthusiastically: "It never stops!" ... every moment is a new creation).
For instance, are you saying that "after enlightenment" ... that there's still (in, as you say, your belief) this full/further illumination of/in subtle form, which occurs, as part of the "set unfolding" for each/all of us (as I believe you said)?
Yes, only I wouldn't say "after enlightenment", I would say: "as part of the ever-unfolding process of enlightenment, there is a continued illumination of the subtle body which occurs for all of us".
quote:
I've never heard any of the non-dual sages who I resonate with mention this sort of thing at all (one way or the other; it's simply not mentioned) ......... which doesn't affect any sense I have of whether it's true, or not .... again: my purpose is purely to "connect the dots" as best I can .... the goal being not to gain further clarity for myself (there's really no sense of need for that; there's very much an ease with "what's going to unfold is going to unfold", with zero concern for the details) ...
Yes, I've never heard any advaita teacher talk about the Christ consciousness stage of human spiritual transformation. I guess it is either that they stopped practicing at the unity consciousness stage, and so never progressed beyond that, or they don't mention it, as they don't want to give their students more stuff to cling onto.
It is spoken of occasionally by other teachers though, Yogananda springs to mind, some Sufi teachers, and it is well documented in the Gnostic Christian tradition.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
We know from what Adyashanti says that what he refers to as awakening (or sometimes as enlightenment) is possible without the development of ecstasy as a 24/7 experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure that's exactly the case, as much as that Adyashanti doesn't emphasize the experiential characteristics, in detail ... per the fact that he purposely emphasizes, and says that he feels the need to emphasize, that "enlightenment is not an experience".
I don't see that as "right or wrong" as an approach, per se .... and I've found the combination of what Yogani says, and what Adya says, to be helpful, in combination.
My point is: knowing Adya's teachings fairly well, I don't think that the fact that he doesn't emphasize ecstasy or bliss as part of enlightenment, doesn't mean that he's specifically stating that enlightenment is "is possible without the development of ecstasy as a 24/7 experience".
That's quite possible. But Adyashanti does talk about specific experiences such as bliss and ecstasy, and I was basing what I said above on this one line from his book "The End of Your World":
"... people think, "When I spiritually awaken, when I have union with God, I will enter into a state of constant ecstasy". This is, of course, a deep misunderstanding of what awakening is." [Adyashanti]
It's difficult for me to work out what he means by that line if, for him, enlightenment is a state of constant ecstasy. At the beginning of this thread I suggested that he is talking about an awakening experience of the non-abiding (his phrase) variety. But if he is actually talking about a permanent state of self-realization, then all I could conclude is that he is talking about a state of unity consciousness, before the process of purification has reached a permanently ecstatic level.
Either that, or he actually means something like: "People think that when they awaken, they will be living in a state of constant ecstasy. This is of course true, but it is not the way that I like people to think about awakening as I'm an advaita teacher..." [:)]
quote:
Again, I respectfully disagree ... not in any "he's right, and he's wrong" OR in any "no, he's farther along, he's less so" (notice I'm not naming names; I have only the greatest sense of affinity, friendship and respect with both Yogani and Adyashanti, and they've both had very direct bearing on (literally) every meaningful aspect of my/non-my life and experiencing ... including (quote-unquote, though still actual) enlightenment ... and so, for me "they're both right!" (Not "about anything" ... just ... both right. ).
I think you misunderstood me here. As I said above, I wasn't saying that one was right, and the other wrong, or that one was further down the road than the other. So we both agree on that. [:)] What I was saying is that the state of consciousness that Adyashanti seems to be pointing people to, and the state of consciousness that Yogani seems to be pointing people to seem to be different.
Yogani's statement that full enlightenment is something that cannot occur except as a result of a long drawn out union between ecstasy and bliss, resulting in Christ consciousness (his words), just doesn't sound like what Adyashanti is talking about, which doesn’t seem to require any prerequisites at all on an experiential level. If it does, Adya is keeping very quiet about them.
Because of the higher levels of ecstatic radiance that are experienced at the Christ consciousness stage, masters at this level have to be careful who they allow to come close to their physical form (or their spiritual form if they have allowed their physical sheath to drop). So enlightened masters at this level often live in seclusion and try to remain anonymous.
quote:
Which isn't to disagree with the model/view of yours we're discussing, by the way .... it's to say that formless awareness is the ground of being, and all states/levels/experiences/forms arise from it ... which, it seems to me, you're saying as well.
Yes, I believe formless awareness is the ground of all being, whether you are living in a state of unity consciousness or a state of Christ consciousness, whether you are living in the physical realm or the heavenly realms or whether you are living in a body of divine glory or a regular physical body. So we are not talking about a further shift in identity, just a further expansion of consciousness to include the heavenly realms, a further illumination (to divine levels) of the subtle body, and a further refinement of sensory perception. This is, I believe, when the siddhis that TI is talking about become a normal part of the divine life.
So what TI is calling Engodment, is what I (and I believe a lot of spiritual teachers from many traditions) would call Christ consciousness, and what you are calling enlightenment is what I (and I believe many others) would call unity consciousness.
I hope this helps to further clarify.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
You just need to distinguish between naked, clear, vivid awareness versus the thoughtstream.
Even Ramana Maharishi said his thoughtstream STILL EXISTED, and within still contained many "evil" thoughts.
But the thoughtstream is just a rope pretending to be a snake.
You guys make it too complicated. IMO, there is no such thing as stages to enlightenment. See my reply up above.
P.S. All psychic powers without exception are solely the result of chakra work. Atleast thats what Robert Bruce, the astral projector, says.
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
"... people think, "When I spiritually awaken, when I have union with God, I will enter into a state of constant ecstasy". This is, of course, a deep misunderstanding of what awakening is." [Adyashanti]
It's difficult for me to work out what he means by that line if, for him, enlightenment is a state of constant ecstasy.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
What I was saying is that the state of consciousness that Adyashanti seems to be pointing people to, and the state of consciousness that Yogani seems to be pointing people to seem to be different.
Yogani's statement that full enlightenment is something that cannot occur except as a result of a long drawn out union between ecstasy and bliss, resulting in Christ consciousness (his words), just doesn't sound like what Adyashanti is talking about, which doesn't seem to require any prerequisites at all on an experiential level. If it does, Adya is keeping very quiet about them.
Ah ... I think I can help (I think I understand the apparent discrepancy, now ... and I don't think there is one).
One of Adya's more well-known quotes is:
"Enlightenment is not an experience."
... and I think the line you quoted above is simply a re-statement of that.
Yogani outlines a model of enlightenment taking place in three general stages:
Stage 1 - Bliss
"It is unshakable, always positive no matter what is going on around us, and it has the feel of eternity in it as well. Most important, it is our awareness standing alone, independent of body, breath, mind, emotions, senses and all external events. It is the proverbial "rock" that will not wash away in the storms of life.
Once our sense of self has become that inner silence, where have we gone? Everywhere, and nowhere. Pure bliss consciousness is a mystery. Yet, it is what we are in our essential nature.
We experience it as bliss, a complete unending happiness. Our consciousness is the source of bliss. Our consciousness is bliss. No one has to take my word for it. As we meditate each day, we gradually come to know what pure bliss consciousness is. As the psalm says, "'Be still, and know I am God.'"
Stage 2 - Ecstasy
"While bliss emanates from our consciousness, ecstasy arises in our body. Ecstasy is the result of prana ravishing us in delicious ways."
"Activation of the experiences of bliss and ecstasy through advanced yoga practices corresponds to the first two stages of enlightenment, which have been discussed in previous lessons – the rise of inner silence and the rise of ecstasy, best done in in that order."
Stage 3 - Union
"The third stage of enlightenment comes following the union of bliss and ecstasy in divine romance inside. While this is going on, we tend to get the descriptions jumbled, because both pure bliss consciousness and divine ecstasy are present at the same time, joining inside us!
What comes out of this union of the masculine and feminine polar energies inside?
We have described the third stage of enlightenment as "unity," where we see all as an expression of the One that we have become.
That One is pure bliss consciousness coexisting within all the (ecstatic) processes of nature.
When it gets to this stage, we become a channel for an unending flow of divine love. We act for the good of all, expecting nothing in return, because we perceive all as an expression of our own self. In this stage, personal need is expanded to encompass universal need.
This is enlightenment, divine love naturally manifesting through us, born of the union of pure bliss consciousness and divine ecstasy inside us."
~Source: AYP Main Lesson #113
http://www.aypsite.com/plus/113.html
I would say (as anyone can verify for themselves, by reviewing both Yogani's and Adyashanti's teachings) ... that Yogani and Adyashanti are pointing to, and teaching from, the same union/unity consciousness, aka enlightenment.
One of the reasons I feel comfortable saying this, is that this union/unity consciousness ... as described above in Yogani's words ... is my own experiencing/knowing/loving/being, as well.
[:)]
And, it can most certainly be all of ours ... because it is what we each and all ever are, now.
[:)]
_/\\_
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is more a "natural result" of meditation, than something one enters by using any technique.
The duration of mantra ... or even the specific mantra itself, has nothing to do with it (experiencing nirvikalpa samadhi) .... truly.
Nirvikalpa Samadhi (maintaining awareness without any form to reflect it ... including object, subject or perception) is a fancy term for a very simple reality:
Thought-self has been conditioned to identify with form for a lifetime (body, feelings, thoughts, "others", and so on) .... and this conditioning to identify with form has been deeply reinforced, moment-by-moment in nearly every moment of life.
And thus, it has created the memory of a sense of self being a body-mind ... partial, alone, separate, incomplete.
...
awareness ... experienced at first as inner silence and/or presence now ... gives way to noticing the pure formlessness of the gap between every perception (see Vinjnanabhairava Tantra and/or Yoga Spandakarika for details) ... and the dissolution of the artificial division of subject-object-perception (savikalpa samadhi) ... and the dissolution of the perceived inability to disengage awareness from form and remain conscious (nirvikalpa samadhi) .... and finally, the dissolution of the perceived inability to enjoy the freedom of the full range of original awareness you actually are, now (enlightenment).
I think we may be having a communication breakdown. Your definition of Nirvikalpa samadhi is not the same as some that I've read..
Is Nirvikalpa Samadhi the same as the "Nirbikalpa" in Autobiography of a Yogi? Here is the quote:
quote:
Numerous bewildered seekers in the West erroneously think that an eloquent speaker or writer on metaphysics must be a master. The rishis, however, have pointed out that the acid test of a master is a man's ability to enter at will the breathless state, and to maintain the unbroken samadhi of nirbikalpa. Only by these achievements can a human being prove that he has "mastered" maya or the dualistic Cosmic Delusion. He alone can say from the depths of realization: "Ekam sat" - "Only One exists".
When you enter nirvikalpa samadhi, are you breathless? How long can you remain breathless?
I decided to Google 'nirvikapla samadhi' and guess what? I can't copy anything from this one, so here is the link:
http://www.indianetzone.com/38/nirvikalpa_samadhi.htm
In there, not only does it say that nirvikalpa samadhi is the last stage of kundalini meditation, it says that you can only maintain nirvikalpa samadhi for 21 consecutive days before you can no longer come back into your body..
And in this next link, the siddhis are mentioned (they keep coming back):
link: http://www.experiencefestival.com/nirvikalpa_samadhi/page/3
quote:
jivanmukta: (Sanskrit) "Liberated soul."
A being who has attained nirvikalpa samadhi - the realization of the Self, Parasiva - and is liberated from rebirth while living in a human body. (Contrasted with videhamukta, one liberated at the point of death.) This attainment is the culmination of lifetimes of intense striving, sadhana and tapas, requiring total renunciation, sannyasa (death to the external world, denoted in the conducting of one's own funeral rites), in the current incarnation.
While completing life in the physical body, the jivanmukta enjoys the ability to reenter nirvikalpa samadhi again and again. At this time, siddhis can be developed which are carried to the inner worlds after mahasamadhi. Such an awakened jnani benefits the population by simply being who he is. When he speaks, he does so without forethought. His wisdom is beyond reason, yet it does not conflict with reason. Nor does he arrive at what he says through the process of reason, but through the process of ajna-chakra sight.
But let's stick to Yogananda's explanation of "nirbikalpa samadhi" if that is the same as nirvikapla samadhi. Again, in Autobiography of a Yogi, it says:
quote:
In the initial states of God-contact (sabikalphi samadhi) the devotee's consciousness merges wit the Cosmic Spirit; his life force is withdrawn from the body, which appears "dead," or motionless and rigid. The yogi is fully aware of his bodily condition of suspended animation. As he progresses to higher spiritual states (nirbikalpa samadhi), however, he communes with God without bodily fixation, and in his ordinary waking consciousness, even in the midst of exacting worldly duties.
In one post called "Simply Tired" by Ananda (here in the Satsang Cafe), he says
quote:
the sense of the small self or persona vanishes during nirvikalpa samadhi (been there done that and as Adyashanti says about it "big deal!")
I guess that is where I differ. If Nirvikalpa samadhi is the final stage of kundalini meditation, the ability to die at will, to quit breathing and experience the totality, to me, that is a very big deal. To me, it means that you've arrived. How can anyone dismiss that state and say 'big deal' about it?
On the other hand, (and I guess this demonstrates that I'm a liberal thinker :), perhaps you don't have to die to experience nirvikalpa samadhi???
Is it like Eckhart Tolle says "Intense present moment awarenss"?
When I do "intense present moment awareness", my breathing stops (because I'm concentrating so darn hard) and an opening opens up for a split second. It is a large dark cave of infinite space and there is something sitting off to my right, which resembles a dark clay body sitting in lotus position. Is that me? Also, when I play the game called "I wonder what my next thought will be" as told by Tolle, my breathing stops and another cave opens up where my thoughts will appear when they come out of the light. My breathing also stops. The problem is that I can only maintain that intense breathless state for a few brief seconds. Sometimes longer during intense concentrative meditation. Is that it?
So it's not like rewriting the software on the computer, it's like pulling out the power chord.. :0
And finally, just because I'm always on the lookout, I found this little passage dismissing Oneness as a final stage of enlightenment:
link: http://www.guruswamig.com/beyondoneness.html
quote:
Yes Oneness is the Bliss of feeling totally Connected and in Sync with God ... One feels themselves as expanded and in Love with the Universe... This is the time where the seeker wants to mistakenly quit and remain --- After all there is still a me that is merged in God... One feels light and special -- gliding along in Bliss and Love with thier ideas of Compassion and Saving the world.... Everything is brighter and life is beautiful --- yet within this are still ups and downs that come and holding it all in place is the expanded ego that feels as if it has become a Co-Creator and has found it's Divine Self... This is what most **** strive**** after .... To be a special hand of God...
YET this is a far cry from Realization and entering into Enlightenment... In Realization there is dissolving into 0---- And True Freedom remains...
This is why seekers need a Sat Guru that has gone the Whole of the Journey versus one that speaks from Oneness... Oneness while the highest state in duality doesn't hold a candle to the Pure Clear Light of Realization... 0 point balance.... As wonderful as Oneness is to leave a Sadhaka there is to leave them in eventual suffering... At first one is enamored of the Oneness Bliss... It is like a honeymoon but it isn't Realization.... Therefore the Guru's and Sages continue to give Guidance to go forward beyond this most attractive point of bliss...
(bolding in the above quote is mine.)
All this reminds me of the Pink Floyd song from Dark Side of the Moon where it says:
quote:
"Us And Them"
Us and Them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me, and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
And the General sat, as the lines on the map
moved from side to side
Black and Blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and Down
And in the end it's only round and round and round
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
the poster bearer cried
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside
Down and Out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about
With, without
And who'll deny that's what the fightings all about
Get out of the way, it's a busy day
And I've got things on my mind
For want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died
:)
TI
-
"I" or "me" can never be "enlightened". We are the pure awareness behind "I" and "me", not actually the "I" and "me" that we so often confuse ourselves with as has been discussed throughout this thread. You are not "John Smith", that is simply a make believe story that we witness.
The second part of the equation is that "enlightened" or "enlightenment" doesn't exist, it is a word, or a temporal idea, an attempt to define the undefinable. It is like putting water in a jar and calling it the ocean, the description can never do it justice.
What point along a continuum are we defining as enlightenment? For another example, a line spreading to infinity in either direction, what part of it is "the line"? It is all arbitrary. Holding on to ideas of "attainment" is a sure way to slow the flow. The statement "my elightenment" is just another experience along the way, but already a sign of inherent identification at some level with the story of "enlightenment".
-
Hi Anthem,
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
"I" or "me" can never be "enlightened". We are the pure awareness behind "I" and "me", not actually the "I" and "me" that we so often confuse ourselves with as has been discussed throughout this thread. You are not "John Smith", that is simply a make believe story that we witness.
Fully agreed; somewhat ironically (given the ebb and flow of this thread [:)] [:)]) ... this is the primary point Wayne Wirs makes on his blog.
We are not who we think we are; we are not our story.
There is no "we" or "me" other than conceptually.
Empty open awareness alone is the subject of all experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
The second part of the equation is that "enlightened" or "enlightenment" doesn't exist, it is a word, or a temporal idea, an attempt to define the undefinable. It is like putting water in a jar and calling it the ocean, the description can never do it justice.
Again ... agreed.
Words get in the way so easily ........ as this thread showcases in such major ways.
And words are the realm of conceptual mind ... but are one of the only tools available to help conceptual mind to potentially look past itself.
As Ramana Maharshi once said, it's akin to removing a thorn with a thorn.
There's no such thing as enlightenment; there's either the experiencing of the wholeness (aka emptiness) of awareness as the "experiencer-experiencing-experience-now" .......... or the confusion of conceptual conditioning mistaking objectivity for the sum total of actuality.
We tend to call the former conditioning enlightenment ... and the latter unenlightenment ...... though neither term fits well; terms are road signs.
Trying to help those understand that trying to make a road sign that is pointing the way to New York City *into* New York City itself is not going to get them any closer to New York City ..... is an exercise in circling, as we're experiencing in this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
What point along a continuum are we defining as enlightenment? For another example, a line spreading to infinity in either direction, what part of it is "the line"? It is all arbitrary. Holding on to ideas of "attainment" is a sure way to slow the flow. The statement "my elightenment" is just another experience along the way, but already a sign of inherent identification at some level with the story of "enlightenment".
Yes, true.
And it may sound like I'm talking in circles here; not my intention, of course.
Again, somewhat ironically, my purpose in "chiming in" here had one purpose: to help those who may be "stuck" in trying to understand enlightenment (which is impossible) to simply feel more motivation to experience it ... and not to block themselves from the experienc(ing) by trying to understand it.
As far as "point along the continuum" .... there is a fundamental shift from "thinking I'm me" to an empty, open awareness living this moment.
There's no "point" where a line can be drawn (despite the fact that so many make it sound this way) .... because it's more of a "morphing" from the incorrect idea of self to ......... no idea of self.
In my (this? [8D]) case ... it was literally noticed after the fact .... "Wow; this is different than ... something .... Hm ... something happened, it seems ... heyyy .... 'no me' .... nice; and on it goes ....".
And based on some of the back-and-forth-tracking that's gone on in this thread ... I'm not sure how much good has been done.
Ultimately, it seems, discussing enlightenment really isn't pertinent, because it's too easy for conceptual mind to try to figure out that which is completely beyond figuring out.
Helping people to stay centered in the actions that get awareness knowing itself in reality beyond suffering and attachment to memory and imagination ....... whatever it's called ... seems like what loving does, now.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi TI,
It seems like you may still be very interested in acquiring, comparing and understanding informational knowledge.
Believe me, I know how entertaining this can be.
However, it truly has nothing to do with enlightenment (or whatever wholeness is best called).
Limited mind can't understand this; it's so sure that discrimination and understanding are important; a lifetime of conditioning has it feeling this way.
"Nirvikalpa samadhi" .... is the "primal unity free from thought constructs" ......... that's what those words mean.
As with all words .... definitions, interpretations and conceptions vary.
A lot.
By re-programming, I didn't mean "reprogramming with something" ... but rather unprogramming .... more like deleting or erasing code than replacing it.
My point was: awareness dissolves concepts, and this new living from and as awareness is reflected in the body-mind.
That's why, even after hearing of the end of the me, and the mind, we don't even remotely understand it, initially ... and we try to ..... and it makes no difference; has no effect, ever.
Practices and inquiry help to dissolve conceptual error, and wholeness is revealed.
That's it.
That's why, as Yogani says, that in AYP, we favor experience over words.
Trying to understand enlightenment conceptually is like trying to understand swimming using rocks ......... not much fun at all.
Keep practicing, keep noticing your own experiencing/awareness, and keep knowing that no book or forum thread has anything to do with enlightenment .... other than to motivate you to know for yourself.
I agree in general with SwamiG's statements about "oneness in duality" (not being true realization/enlightenment).
Dissolving past duality .... into the emptiness of actual union ..... open, original awareness ... is the "enlightenment" I've been inviting everyone to experience.
Living unbound is simply an accurate term for experience, now, when there's no longer the incorrect concept of being bound.
It doesn't have to be called anything.
But it is real.
It's all that's real.
Have you ever felt the sweetness of touching someone you love, tenderly?
When the concept of separate self dissolves, every moment feels like being the caressing hand ... and the caressed skin ... and most beautifully of all ... the two becoming one ... and the one dissolving into the wholeness of the experiencing ..... no separate will; no concepts .... just loving .... just wholeness .... just home.
[:)]
It's not that every moment "seems like this", now.
Every moment is this, now.
[:)]
I invite you all to know this, in living experiencing, every moment now.
[:)]
_/\\_
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Hi Christi,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
"... people think, "When I spiritually awaken, when I have union with God, I will enter into a state of constant ecstasy". This is, of course, a deep misunderstanding of what awakening is." [Adyashanti]
It's difficult for me to work out what he means by that line if, for him, enlightenment is a state of constant ecstasy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
What I was saying is that the state of consciousness that Adyashanti seems to be pointing people to, and the state of consciousness that Yogani seems to be pointing people to seem to be different.
Yogani's statement that full enlightenment is something that cannot occur except as a result of a long drawn out union between ecstasy and bliss, resulting in Christ consciousness (his words), just doesn't sound like what Adyashanti is talking about, which doesn't seem to require any prerequisites at all on an experiential level. If it does, Adya is keeping very quiet about them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah ... I think I can help (I think I understand the apparent discrepancy, now ... and I don't think there is one).
One of Adya's more well-known quotes is:
"Enlightenment is not an experience."
... and I think the line you quoted above is simply a re-statement of that.
So are you saying that what Adyashanti really means, is that although a permanent state of ectstasy is one of the qualities of enlightenment, and is a pre-requisite for enlightenment, and one of the factors that brings enlightenment about, it is not in itself what enlightenment is. And he would point to the shift of identity from egoic consciousness to undifferentiated awareness and from there to unity, or oneness as being what enlightenment is about?
I have to confess, I would find that a little hard to believe, based on some of the things that Adyashanti has said. I remember he talked once about how the mind has the idea that an enlightened person doesn't feel crappy in the mornings, and that he had to let go of that idea, which was of course just an idea that "thinking mind" had about what enlightenment was or was not. To be honest, feeling crappy in the mornings doesn't sound much like a permanent state of ecstasy.
I'm just pointing this out so you can see why I believe that Adyashanti and Yogani are guiding people towards different stages of enlightenment. As I said above, I am not trying to put anyone down in any way and I have the utmost respect for everyone we are discussing here. I am just trying to make some kind of sense out of what Adyashanti means when he talks about enlightenment, awakening and oneness and where it falls in the overall process of enlightenmnet.
In the main lessons, Yogani doesn’t say that at some stage in the process of awakening you experience ecstasy 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except in the mornings when you feel crappy. [:)] So we must be talking about two different things.
If Adyashanti is talking about the witness stage becoming a 24 hour/ 7 days a week experience, then yes, it would be possible to feel crappy in the mornings, and yet still be present as the witness. So the identity would be residing as pure awareness and would be aware of the sensation of the body/mind feeling crappy. I would say that in some of the higher stages of the enlightenment process this would no longer be possible, because of the way in which the body becomes purified, and that Yogani is pointing to these higher stages, as well as the witness stage and unity consciosness stages that Adyashanti seems to be pointing to.
On the subject of the transition from oneness (unity consciousness) to Christ consciousness, I found this written by Tau malachi on the four stages of the evolution of the soul, which I thought you may find interesting:
quote:
Rauch
Rauch is our spirit or intelligence... there are two distinct manifestations of Rauch. They are called the upper Rauch and the lower Rauch. The lower Rauch is the normal human intelligence which is oriented to the... external world...
The upper Rauch is oriented to the Neshamah and to the divine. As a result, it is an awareness of the ocean of spirituality, which surrounds us- awareness of the play of spiritual or cosmic forces, the metaphysical dimensions of reality, and God's holy Shekinah (presence and power) within and behind everything that transpires.
At this level we begin to get a sense of God's will for our soul- the mission of our soul. We are also able to receive the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to receive communication from the divine powers, and to experience higher states of consciousness well beyond the ordinary level.
Reaching the level of upper Rauch more and more, we find ourselves guided by the spirit and moved by the spirit. At the highest levels, we can experience unification with the Holy Spirit... which is a prophetic state of consciousness in which a person feels him or herself completely elevated and transformed.
When the level of upper Rauch is present in a person, they are rightly called a spiritual or holy person, for more than a godly soul, he or she is a Spirit-filled soul.
Neshamah
At the level of Neshamah, one experiences the radiant holy breath of God. Neshamah is the vessel that holds the spiritual power that God wants to give us... Nefesh forms a material body, but the Neshamah forms a body of light or heavenly image. This is an angelic image... the image of one's Christ self or future self. It is this divine image resembling a human being that prophets behold in the peak of their divine visions.
The enlightenment experience begins at the level of Rauch, but enlightenment and liberation proper correspond to the level of Neshamah... It is at this level that a true Messianic consciousness dawns and the Christ-self is realized. While many initiates attain the level of Rauch, relatively few attain the level of Neshamah.
Hayyah
The Hayyah is the most subtle life-force or living essence- so heavenly that it has little connection with the body and dwells mostly in other realms. It is the radiant holy breath of God that is experienced at the level of Neshamah. Yet at the level of hayyah, the holy breath is completely within God and one who experiences this presence and power experiences a conscious unification with God.
Most individuals will only gain the awareness of Hayyah in altered states. In these rare moments of peak experience, it is as though one is light in an ocean of light- the world of supernal light being experienced within and all around oneself. Quite literally one sees and experiences everything as this light-force....
While many initiates may experience something of Hayyah in peak mystical experience, the actual attainment of Hayyah is very rare. The power of the Hayyah is the power to resurrect the dead. Very few masters have walked the earth with this divine power...
Yechidah
There is an even higher level of the soul of light than Hayyah. It is called Yechidah- the holy or divine spark. It is a grade of unification beyond Hayyah of which nothing can really be said. One who attains this level is the light of all the worlds and is the way, truth and life. This is the essence of the spiritual sun- the Christos- Christ...
If Hayyah represents enlightenment proper and Yechidach is something beyond that holy attainment, then something subtle and profound is being said of enlightenment. What appears to us as a supreme or ultimate attainment is, in truth, but the beginning of a whole new level of evolution to which there is no end in sight." [Tau malachi, Gnosis of the Cosmic Christ]
I believe that the practices in AYP are designed to take someone through these four stages of transformation leading from Rauch, through Neshamah and Hayyah, to Yechidah... the unfolding of Christ consciousness and the bringing down of the divine light into the light of this world.
Personally I find Tau Malachi in particular, and Gnostic Christianity in general, helpful for not falling into the illusion of thinking that I have arrived anywhere, even when living from/as undifferentiated awareness. I also find Tau Malachi's writings useful for keeping the process of enlightenment as a never-ending continuum in perspective, which is something that Yogani also continually points to.
Christi
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
So are you saying that what Adyashanti really means, is that although a permanent state of ectstasy is one of the qualities of enlightenment, and is a pre-requisite for enlightenment, and one of the factors that brings enlightenment about, it is not in itself what enlightenment is.
Not at all.
[:)]
When Yogani writes of enlightenment involving ecstasy, he's trying to give a general sense of how wonderful enlightenment is ... using one of the few terms that might serve to give limited mind any sense of what enlightenment might be like, in any way.
However, he wasn't referring to an unending state of ecstasy; enlightenment truly isn't about states .... and enlightenment isn't "ecstasy" in and of itself.
If ecstasy is even the correct term for the experiencing, it's a very subtle, whole experiencing of ecstasy ... the term "blended" or "integrated" feels kind of right.
The ecstasy that's an inherent part of the awareness-self-experiencing .... in-as what we're loosely calling enlightenment ... the living from the true nature of original awareness that's revealed when the dream of conceptual conditioning being real, or being the self, dissolves ... is very subtle, very peaceful ... and infinitely real, now.
Yet, it's probably not a word I would use at all ... though I get why Yogani did ... and it's certainly not inaccurate; I would be likely to describe the general sense maybe as bliss ... as in "ananda" ... sat-chid-ananda .... actuality-awareness-bliss ..... aka ecstasy.
[:)]
No experience, quality or state is the same in enlightenment as it is when experienced as an object, by a sense-of-self ... because subject-object duality is no longer confused with actuality.
There's certainly the experiencing of "being a person, going about one's day" ... but there's not the confusion of thinking I *am* a person, any longer.
And so, there's not the "having" of ecstasy, nor the comparison with non-ecstasy, that there was in the "ideaverse" ... the dream of subject-object duality .... but there's a completion, a pleasantness ... a wholeness ... that even the most staggering ecstasy experienced in the ideaverse can't even begin to touch ..... because the ideaverse isn't real; experiences-as-objects aren't real.
Enlightenment (living from-as original awareness) experiences a full range of states and a full range of emotions; these things are part of the human experiencing .... there's simply no longer the constriction of attention around distorted, artificially limited thinking about those states and emotions which were a symptom of living a thinking-based dream, rather than living as awareness-illuminated presence, now.
Adyashanti focuses primarily on what enlightenment is like, and what it's about.
Yogani focuses primarily on the sets of activities that can get us to the living experience of enlightenment.
Both Yogani and Adyashanti are teaching these things from-as enlightenment.
Enlightenment itself continues to expand and unfold, but it is much less about specific levels than mind can think.
I agree that Tau Malachi does a very nice job of articulating what can be articulated about some of this (and I appreciate your inclusion of his teaching on this; I'll comment on that in a separate post) .... and he has repeatedly made the point that any experiences (further unfolding, new levels) at the level of supernal (thought-free) awareness, aka enlightenment ... really can't be communicated or understood, outside of living those experiences for oneself.
That's why it truly isn't pertinent to talk much about enlightenment, other than very generally ........ anyone not experiencing it can't understand it, and even if they could ... it still wouldn't be accurate, because it would be a conception or image of enlightenment ...... and conception and imagination is exactly what enlightenment is not.
"The tao which can be spoken of is not the tao" is not just a poetic or mysterious statement ... it's literally and actually true.
If something can be spoken of, it's part of the realm of words and images ... duality.
And so, just because Adyashanti doesn't emphasize the term or state of ecstasy doesn't mean that he's at a different "level" than Yogani; there really aren't different "levels" in enlightenment, as the mind can understand that term.
True nature is completion.
The union of the divine romance that Yogani speaks of kind of smooths everything out .... terms like ecstasy, bliss and peace don't even matter, in the actual experiencing of enlightenment/one awareness .... and the experiencing of them is wonderful, beyond imagination .... yet they are not at all as mind imagines them to be.
I can't say for sure that Adya has ever used the phrase "crappy day" ... that may have been my mis-remembering (though he may have; my point is: in enlightenment there aren't really "crappy days" ... that's a figure of speech).
There can be anger, for a moment ... there can be a series of events that limited mind would have resisted or disliked (for instance, the day I was physically very sick, which I described in rather graphic detail in a recent post to TI [8D]).
However, anger is a reaction of the body-mind; awareness doesn't have anything to do with it, other than it experiences the anger ... but without the constriction of limited mind, emotions like anger pass very quickly.
Being very sick can be what happens; there's no sense of disliking, or wishing it was different; actual is actual .... resisting or disliking artificially creates a sense of suffering .... which shows how unreal those ego reactions truly are).
I hope this helps clarify why I have a sense that Adya and Yogani are not teaching from or about different "levels" in any way.
And please note: the rest of this post is directed to anyone / all reading, not primarily to Christi, only.
They're both teaching from and of enlightenment (as is Tau Malachi, by the way) and how to experience enlightenment ..... for enlightenment can only be experienced; it can't be understood ........ because enlightenment is living free from the subject-object-perception ideaverse in which understanding resides.
And to answer-in-advance the question-objection which often arises: yes, I do have a sense that Yogani, Adya and Tau Malachi are enlightened ... solely as intuition, yet intuition which is still comfortably here even though evaluation (and the former evaluator) are thankfully absent.
[:)]
As much as some consider it "yogically-incorrect" (or even "yogically-inaccurate") to say .... this (the genuine enlightenment appearing as the three teachers named above) feels pertinent to mention .... because there's a lot of confused teaching out there ....... and they are three of the clear and authentically enlightened ones, and three of a small handful of teachers who helped (figure of speech-->) me .... know I'm home, too.
[:)]
And in my experience, nothing that any of the three of them has ever said or written can steer you wrong ... and long as you look at where their words are pointing, in terms of what they can mean in your experiencing, and the experiencing their words can facilitate.
And there's a lot (in the teachings of all three of them ... Yogani, Adyashanti & Tau Malachi) that can not only potentially steer you "right" ... but can also steer you home.
And, like it always is when you get home ....... you'll recognize it when you get here.
I hope this is truly helpful .... wholeheartedly.
Peace, All.
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Christi & All,
Per the topic-drift in this thread .... I started a new thread on levels and models of enlightened consciousness, over here (http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=6742#6742).
[:)]
-
Hi Christi, TI & All,
Some thoughts from Yogani on the nature and attainability of enlightenment:
"Enlightened people can fall flat on their face like anyone else. The good news is that it leaves little lasting impression (limited identification), and that is why calamities befalling the enlightened are often accompanied by infectious laughter.
There is additional good news. Because enlightenment is not some distant imaginary perfection, we each will find it to be much closer to what we are experiencing right now. It is very near, and with daily practices, getting nearer all the time. It is ... Now.
For some additional perspective, see this lesson on "enlightenment and perfection (http://www.aypsite.com/plus/260.html)".
Does this mean an enlightened person can be grumpy? Sure. It also means that they will attract mainly those people who need (or are willing to put up with) a grumpy teacher. Everyone has a choice on how they conduct their life -- both teachers and students. The enlightened and the nearly enlightened.
No one has a corner on the market.
The guru is in you."
Originally Posted Here (http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=4483#39008).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Hi TI,
Believe me, I know how entertaining this can be.
This is not entertainment for me. I'm deadly serious. I appreciate clear, concise and congruent teachings and that is not what I get from you-know-who and you-know-what.
I noticed you evaded the question about "how long you can remain in nirvikalpa samadhi". Perhaps you cannot and you are afraid to admit that you still have a long way to go. You may think that you are enlightened according to you-know-who's redefinition of enlightenment, a reductionist bastardization of the term for true self-realisation, but I'm trying to point out to you that you shouldn' fall into that trap. You seem to think that you've arrived. That is fine. What if you haven't arrived? What if there is actually way more than you-know-who is teaching?
You:
quote:
"Nirvikalpa samadhi" .... is the "primal unity free from thought constructs" ......... that's what those words mean.
Here is another link about nirvikalpa samadhi:
quote:
Sunday
LESSON 266
The Way after Realization
When a yoga guru brings others from darkness into light and from light into Self Realization, he is also strengthening his own golden body. When a satguru makes it easy for his sannyasins to remain in the practice of Self Realization, encouraging them and demanding of them the practice of nirvikalpa samadhi, he helps them hold their forces in check through the power of his golden body.
After nirvikalpa samadhi, the sannyasin has a choice to serve mankind or to wait for mankind to unfold into the consciousness that he has attained. This is called being a bodhisattva or upadeshi, one who serves, or an arahat or nirvani, one who waits. The golden body begins to grow through service and by bringing others into enlightenment as a bodhisattva, or through the constant practice of nirvikalpa samadhi while living a strictly secluded life as an arahat, only mixing with those of his own level of realization.
The sahasrara chakra at the top of the head and the ajna chakra at the brow, or the third eye, are the two controlling force centers of the soul body. These force centers become the two lowest chakras of the yoga master's new golden body, svarnasharira, as this body begins to build after his first nirvikalpa samadhi.
The usual experience before nirvikalpa samadhi is for the aspirant to become a knower of the Self. This could occur at any time during his training. In order to attain this experience of "touching into the Self," he must have a complete balance of all odic and actinic forces within him. A noted change in his life pattern often occurs after he becomes a knower of the Self, for the soul body has become released into orbit, and he has then a subsuperconscious control of this body. In other words, the odic-force tie has been released. This body has quickly matured. Then, if practicing contemplation as prescribed by his satguru and finally working out the various karmic binds or holds in the lower odic force field with the help of the guru, he attains complete Self Realization, or nirvikalpa samadhi. Then the golden body, svarnasharira, is born through the merging of the forces of the pituitary and the pineal gland, setting the sahasrara into a constant spinning motion. This constant spinning motion generates the force which propels the yoga adept back into nirvikalpa samadhi. Each time he goes into nirvikalpa samadhi he intensifies a little the spinning movement of this chakra, unfolding it a little more, and as this occurs, the golden body begins to build.
When the yoga adept touches into the Self and becomes a knower of the Self, attains nirvikalpa samadhi, becomes Self Realized, yoga powers come to him. These yoga powers are often renounced, depending upon the rule of the order to which he belongs, whether it be a teaching order or an order of hermits. According to the need, a power is developed. The powers that a yogi can use are as many as the petals within the sahasrara chakra. They are 1,008. These powers are conceived through the nadis -- small, elastic-like psychic nerve currents extending out into and through the aura of the body. The nadis work in conjunction with the chakras, and with the major currents of the body, ida, pingala and sushumna.
Realizing Parasiva gives you great power, but to use that power very sparingly or not at all is the greater thing to do, because the power itself works of its own accord. If you have powers, siddhis that are unfolded, it is best not to consciously use them. You can demonstrate to yourself to be sure you have them, but these siddhis are all connected with devonic forces that will work totally for righteousness without your demonstrating them. That is why no one wants to come up against a rishi. Similarly, a good king does not use his power. He makes everything flourish without appearing to be powerful. His greater power happens in unseen ways.
Remember, when the kundalini force becomes strong within you during a meditation, just sit and be aware that you are aware -- a blissful state called kaif in Shum, the language of meditation. You will feel very positive and experience yourself as a great big ball of energy. When the energy begins to wane, try to absorb it into every cell of your external body, then continue your meditation exactly where you left off. In this way you will build a strong, disciplined nerve system and subconscious mind. This will lead you naturally onto the next inner plateau, then to the next and the next.
Never allow yourself to be complacent in your spiritual attainments. Always continue to strive. Even rishis, swamis and yogis who have totally realized Parasiva continue to work on themselves from within themselves. They don't let down, because if they did it would be many years before they had the next experience of the timelessness, formlessness, spacelessness of the unspeakable Parasiva experience. The message, therefore, is, at the beginning of meditation and at the end, keep striving. Don't turn back, but proceed with confidence.
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-38.html
:)
TI
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
When Yogani writes of enlightenment involving ecstasy, he's trying to give a general sense of how wonderful enlightenment is ... using one of the few terms that might serve to give limited mind any sense of what enlightenment might be like, in any way.
But Yogani does say that ecstasy is not only one of the milestones en-route to enlightenment, but that it is also an essential ingredient in the enlightenment equation, and that full realization cannot occur without it.
quote:
That's why it truly isn't pertinent to talk much about enlightenment, other than very generally ........ anyone not experiencing it can't understand it,
Is this a recent observation that you've made. [:D]
quote:
I can't say for sure that Adya has ever used the phrase "crappy day" ... that may have been my mis-remembering (though he may have; my point is: in enlightenment there aren't really "crappy days" ... that's a figure of speech).
I don't remember the exact term he used. It may not have been "crappy", but you get the idea. [:)]
The point I was trying to make was that if Adyashanti is talking about realizing you are enlightened even when you are having a pretty grouchy morning, that has to be a stage before what Yogani refers to as "living in a fountain of ecstasy". If someone was living in a fountain of ecstasy, they probably wouldn't be having a pretty grouchy morning. I do get what you are saying about enlightenment not having anything to do with experiences or emotions. But on one level it does. If someone is getting angry a lot, or depressed or miserable or grumpy, then there has to be a certain degree of identification with the egoic self for those emotions to be brought about. Someone has to be still buying into the story of limited self, to find something to be angry about, or grumpy about.
As Anthem pointed out above, this buying into the story can happen on quite a subtle level, in the senses of “I’m enlightened” (identification) or “I’m not the one who is angry, that’s just the body/mind” (disassociation).
Christi
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Hi TI,
Believe me, I know how entertaining this can be.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This is not entertainment for me. I'm deadly serious. I appreciate clear, concise and congruent teachings and that is not what I get from you-know-who and you-know-what.
Er ....... no I don't.
Really; I don't know who you mean, here, for sure. Reading the rest of your post ... I'm guessing *maybe* Adyashanti {?} ... who, for me, is one of the more clear, concise and congruent teachers I've ever experienced ... so whether one likes him or not, I'd be surprised to hear him described like that ... enough so, that it makes me unsure of my guess ... and so: please just tell me: who do you mean, here?
And, important: I know you're deadly serious, TI ... I seem to recall complimenting you on your sincerity in previous posts in this thread, in fact; my apologies if that line ("I know how entertaining this can be") didn't sit with you the right way; it's never my intention to be disrespectful ... and inherent respect for you, for all, is just what's here.
[:)]
Someone once asked Adyashanti .... "Why don't people who are trying to wake up ... wake up ... get enlightened?"
Adyashanti offered one of the most poignant answers that I've ever heard ... yet one that "egos everywhere" would likely take major exception to; Adya said:
"Because they're still finding entertainment in the dream to some extent."
I first heard him that this in probably 2003 .... and I remember feeling a flash of insight regarding how deeply this dynamic (finding entertainment in the dream, on some level, in some way .... even at the deepest levels of sub-conscious conditioning) can actually go ..... within the last few weeks.
Thinking mind doesn't always recognize entertainment as entertainment .... it just knows that certain behavior (voraciously ingesting as much enlightenment-related information as possible, in this case) feels good, right and even important.
In retrospect, "entertaining" was probably a poor word to use; it didn't convey what I meant at all, and I see how it could seem disrespectful; I apologize.
[:)]
I meant what I said to you in a similar context (to what Adya said, above ... in terms of how I meant the word "entertaining") .... and I say it as one who has spent a lot of time doing exactly what you're doing (and I mean that in the sense of "as observation verifies", per the wide variety of informational resources you've quoted from, in this thread alone) ... namely .... voraciously ingesting all possible information which might possibly help bring us closer to the truth.
Because truth ... enlightenment .... is the most important thing to us.
And so, the feeling here, when I wrote that sentence ("how entertaining") ... was one of respect ... combined with "I've so been there!"
Even long after I was completely sure I was no longer there .... I was still there.
My entire intention in expressing what I did to you (that sentence, and the few after it) .... was to help save you some significant time, if possible .... to help you have the experiencing of enlightenment sooner.
Thought-self thinks that thinking about thoughts that others thought will result in what it thinks will be what it thinks of as enlightenment - and so, thinks that this is important to do.
You may have seen certain devices (speedometers, tachometers, etc.) ... that have a "red area" in the upper part of the scale ... after a certain number of RPMs ... one is said to be "redlining" ... and can blow their engine ... which is why the red is there in the first place ... to let the driver know that spending too much time "in the red zone" ... can be detrimental to their objective.
My words were meant as kind of a friendly tap on the shoulder .... "Hey, TI ... that needle is looking pretty far into the red ... it's okay; I used to drive exactly like that do; going fast is fun ... but, Dude, you're gonna blow your engine ... and may not be driving at all for a while ... or ... more likely ........ you'll miss your exit, and have to circling around some more, to get back to it."
I'm not saying "don't read" ... Adyashanti has an interview with Tami Simon from Sounds True, in newer editions of Emptiness Dancing (at the very end, after the book itself ends) ... where he comments on reading, and how most teachers, including him, emphasize that you can't find realization in a book.
But then he says:
"I see that even though I never found realization of truth in any book, because you can't, reading for me has played a significant role. It was double-edged. It got in the way at times -- with concepts and ideas and competing concepts -- but reading has also been an important part of my journey, too."
Mine, too.
Yours, too, it seems.
I've just seen (in this thread alone) far more in the realm of "concepts and ideas and competing concepts" (about levels of consciousness, exactly what nirvikalpa samadhi is, and so on) ... from sources that don't necessarily have any real reason for being accepted as a credible resource, as far as I can tell (example: in one of the your first posts in this thread, you posted a definition of enlightenment, with a link. I checked the link, and tried to find who the quote was from ... but it wasn't a quote ... it was just written by the guy who started that web site, as far as I could tell).
You or I, or anyone reading could do the same ... we are, in fact! [:)] <-- These words are on the public web, right now .... who knows ... someone in some other blog or forum may be linking here ..... and saying:
"He's SO obviously right!! And HE'S *So* obviously deluded!!"
........ though I have no idea which one of us they might mean, in those two statements; could go either way, depending upon who's doing the linking .... [8D][:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I noticed you evaded the question about "how long you can remain in nirvikalpa samadhi".
Yep; "evaded on purpose" ... per everything I wrote above.
[:)]
I don't know if you've noticed .... but every time I say something of my experience with respect to samadhi ... you find something that someone wrote which disagrees with it, or appears to be saying something different than I am ... and you post that information .... and say: "But what about that?"
This probably seems logical to your mind .... minds evaluates, discriminates, discerns, ruminates, divides, defines, delineates, ruminates some more, and concludes ... and presumably .... this is all part of that process for you.
And I truly respect that.
But Dude .... I can't compete, informationally speaking ... with everything ever written, in every possible context, and to every possible reading audience, by everyone from Yogananda to some guy who set up a web site .... in terms of how my experience might compare to what they're saying.
For one, I don't and can't know; neither can you.
But, far more importantly: it doesn't matter.
What if I said:
"Okay ... you got me! I didn't want to say this .... but I can, and do, go into the breathless state, and maintain it at will; and my samadhi is exactly as Yogananda describes."
What then?
Your mind might feel like: "Wow ... so he IS actually enlightened. Wow. I guess maybe I'll listen to what he has to say." (Or, more appropriately: "Wow ... so he IS actually full of crap ..... I guess I won't actually listen to what he has to say." [:D])
Either way ..... how much faster would me giving that answer ... or its opposite ("Y'know, TI ... after reading all those samadhi overviews you so kindly posted, I realize that I wouldn't recognize a samadhi if it strolled over to me and started humping my leg." [8D]) .... help you to experience enlightenment?
It wouldn't; they wouldn't.
And so, I'm attempting to:
A. Break the cycle of this kind of non-helpful back-and-forth.
&
B. Explain why.
I don't mind posting/talking ..... I enjoy it (rather obviously, I think [:)]) ... I just don't want to continue to engage in the aspects of the conversation that cannot be helpful to either of us.
And so, please at least consider what I've said above.
Even talking about my own experience has only limited value, for you; it can only serve as a further pointer/indicator for you, at best.
It sounds like, ultimately (and I'm being serious and respectful, here ... and just going with arising intuition) .... that you're actually looking for who you can trust, regarding information about enlightenment .... because you don't want to delay your own experience of enlightenment by putting your trust in the wrong people/resources.
Does that resonate as true?
If so, it's understandable; I spent a fair amount of time doing that, also; thinking mind conceives of this approach (skepticism and evaluation, as a means of getting to the resources that can help you, by eliminating the ones that can't) and the process as wise, understandable and necessary.
It's not, truly.
A big part of true spirituality/experiencing enlightenment involves opening the door to the experiencing by coming to understand that nothing you've learned to consider valuable or true or real .... is (valuable or true or real).
It's not that you've never learned anything good ... even regarding spirituality/truth, etc. ... you've obviously learned some very good things, from reading; I have, too.
What it's (what I'm saying) about, is that it's about a hundred thousand times more likely that the whole process of finding some information, evaluating it with thinking mind, reaching a conclusion, and feeling you now know something more than you did before .... and think you are therefore "closer to enlightenment", somehow ...
...... will actually delay your experiencing/living from enlightenment ...... rather than help enlightenment to be your experiencing sooner ............. which is the objective, here, for both of us (if it wasn't, I wouldn't be remaining so fully engaged in this conversation).
[:)]
Why, exactly?
Because the gateway to enlightenment is letting go of thinking mind.
That's why meditation is so important.
Thinking mind doesn't actually believe this; it thinks (literally) that this is a distorted teaching ("C'mon .... how could it be real, if it doesn't involve *me*?", it thinks. [8D])
The reality is: thinking mind can be ignored, regarding anything related to enlightenment ...... and you'll realize enlightenment just fine .... and likely, realize it more directly, and sooner.
Have you ever approached a puppy that growls at you .... and the puppy is deadly serious .... and to you .... it's cute (presuming you like dogs; most of us do ...... if not, pick an animal you like ..... or even a little kid who has his or her defenses up .... say a one or two year old ....) .... and within a few minutes, you're best friends .... and that primal instinct the puppy's system generated, based on its perceived need to protect itself ... is forgotten by you both.
That's what it's like with thinking mind.
It thinks it needs to acquire information ..... because it's always been taught that this is *how* you learn, how you come to know (there's a technical term for the entire approach; that term is: wrong .... literally.) ,,,, *and* .... it thinks it needs to learn who it can trust .... by evaluating .... and concluding .... and *this* approach is "wrong times ten" ... at least).
Let's say you had to run 50 metres as fast as you can ... and doing so will accomplish two things; it will:
A. Save your life.
&
B. Give you all the wealth, power, peace of mind, sex and 10% discount coupons, with no expiry date.
ALL you have to do is run as fast as you can ..... not faster than anyone else ... just as fast as you can.
And so, it's doable ..... and the reward is infinite .... and therefore infinitely motivating, yes?
I mean ..... the only thing better would be ......... actual enlightenment!
[:)]
And so, I have one important question for you:
Before starting to run this most important race ......... this only important race ..... would you:
A. Tie your shoes in the normal manner?
Or
B. Tie the laces of the two shoes together?
(As in: option B will entail you stumbling, tripping, falling, not actually being able to run.)
I'm guessing "A".
And I realize you don't see this, currently (or you wouldn't be doing it) .... but this entire "challenge statements, evaluate answer, compare with other information, conclude; challenge again, evaluate that answer ....") .... is option B.
I'm attempting to motivate you to go with option *A*.
What does that look like, in terms of your living from enlightenment, ASAP?
It looks like:
*Daily practices
*Self-Pacing as needed
*Maintaining sincerity (bhakti) until the sincerity (bhakti) maintains you (as in: if enlightenment isn't the sole purpose of your life .... and it seems like it basically is, at a certain point, it will be ... in a very low-key, yet utterly pervasive way; your life will be *about* whatever it takes to experiencing living enlightenment .... and rightly so.)
*Reading of enlightement-related things as intuition guides you.
*Letting awareness be present as much as possible.
*Noticing what is true, by observation in your own experience.
Examples:
You can quickly notice, in your own experience, that: thinking about anything, especially the way we've all been conditioned to do ... isn't needed; the right thinking, in the right amount, if it's needed .... happens naturally.
*The right information for you, intuitively "clicks" ... you can be easy with it; your mind doesn't have to growl, or raise the fur on its back .... you can have *fun* and easily know that you'll always know what you need to know, when you need to know it.
*When you're "easy with it all" ..... the warm light of clear intuition .... shines into-as awareness freely and easily. No battle is needed; there's no chance of "not finding it" ..... no chance; the universe doesn't actually work in that way ("survival of the fittest" on all levels, and with regard to all matters) ... at all.
The wise and succinct phrase from the Bible says:
"Be still and know I AM God."
It doesn't say:
"Read everything that's ever been written about God, and listen to people who say they know I AM God, and challenge them, and then think about their answers, and read some more, and then offer evidence that the ones who say they know I AM God, that others who claim to know I AM God have expressed their experiencing of knowing I AM God differently than the first person, in order to see how the first person, although there may be many sets of "that person", in order to approach the search to know I AM God thoroughly enough, and then see how they, that first person, responds to the evidence, and then think further about that person's answers, in combination with the first set of information, which may or may not have been evaluated to be valuable at first, but may now be evaluated to be valuable in light of the new information that is informative useful, and combine your conclusions regarding that information to conclusions regarding any other information you might have found, or might find, about what knowing I AM God actually entails, until, of course, you find some new information, so help you God."
There's a reason for that.
Be Still.
Stillness is alive.
Stillness is real.
Stillness is who you actually are, the creator of everything manifesting and which can be manifested, worlds without end.
Stillness is infinite, stillness is eternal.
Stillness is trying to enlighten your ass.
But you're not letting it ..... you're too busy gathering more information.
And yes, I know .... that may not sound "nice".
But .... TI ........ what IF .... I said or did something that was not so nice that was really going to save your life?
What if we're ever at an AYP Retreat, or whatever, and we're standing there talking ... and a driver loses control of a car ... an it going to run into you at high speed ......... and I grab your arm and forcefully *YANK* you out of the way ... and you don't die, or end up in the hospital for a long time.
Let's even say your arm hurts a bit.
How angry would you be with me?
I'm guessing "not very" would at least be accurate, yes?
You can respond as you respond (if you do) ... in writing ........ but right now, in the privacy of wherever you're sitting and reading this .... just .... open ... and let yourself consider what I'm saying (in this entire post, so far) ... not by thinking .... by opening to intuition.
As I said elsewhere in this thread:
I'm not interested in my enlightenment; I'm interested in yours.
I don't care what you think about my enlightenment (for one, neither "my" nor "enlightenment" can ever be entirely accurate statements, in any case ... per all the discussion in this thread, and elsewhere) .... and it has nothing to do with your enlightenment.
ALL I ever intended to do, in starting this thread, and in joining my voice with Wayne's (and Yogani's per the quote from him, a few posts back in thisn thread) ... is to encourage and invite you (and everyone) to experience living from enlightenment.
Answering your questions and challenges about various point of my experiencing, in comparison to other experiencing and/or theories you have read about, concerning enlightenment ....... is not part of that invitation.
[:)]
It's not that I mind ........ it's more that I, very literally don't mind.
[:)]
As In: if I "minded" ... I would engage "mind over here's" conditioned tendency to *love* dialog like this ..... and I would answer every point you raise with not only confirmation from my own experiencing, but with a staggering amount of specific quotes and resources from the most credible possible resources which would highlight, fully and clearly and in a way that essentially anyone would have to acknowledge, that what I say about enlightenment in more credible than what you think others are saying about enlightenment.
In short:
My information can beat up your information.
[:D]
Our egos would both have a lot of fun, I'm sure ...... and I mean that; if you look around the forum, you'll see several other threads where I've done (or attempted) that sort of thing.
And I have no idea if "my information won" ... I don't actually ever look at it that way .... I'm just saying "responding to quoted resources with other quoted resources and detailed explanations" .... in conditioned-mind's default inclination, over here.
This inclination has only dissipated very recently (wait a minute ... I hear something .... that's weird .... that sounds like an entire group of people loudly exclaiming "it dissipated??" ... all at once; must be my imagination ..... [:D]) ...... strangely, it's dissipated in conjunction with (reliance upon and identification with) thinking-mind dissipating.
"Hm."
And with that ..... I've got to go for a bit.
I will actually respond to your nirvikalpa samadhi question/comment/quote/challenge a bit later; it may be brief (for me, at least ... [8D]) .... but whatever arises to say, it won't be evasive.
However ..... everything I've said in this post is far more important than anything I've ever said about samadhi, and has infinitely more direct bearing on your experiencing/living enlightenment, as soon as possible.
If you let yourself truly "get" this, what happens is: the light of your original awareness can shine through into your experiencing that much more fully, and that much more quickly ... the end result of which is .... enlightenment (which is the beginning creation of living unbound - free from suffering, doubt, partiality and fear; freedom beyond imagination; loving beyond imagination ----- everything you've ever dreamed of having ---- only infinitely better).
And so ......... maybe "sit with" what I've said, a little.
You might just end up glad that you did.
[:)]
_/\\_
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I noticed you evaded the question about "how long you can remain in nirvikalpa samadhi". Perhaps you cannot and you are afraid to admit that you still have a long way to go.
Perhaps.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
You may think that you are enlightened according to you-know-who's redefinition of enlightenment, a reductionist bastardization of the term for true self-realisation, but I'm trying to point out to you that you shouldn' fall into that trap.
Thank you; while I disagree with much of what you say above, I sincerely appreciate your sentiment.
I don't think I am enlightened (by the way) ... [:)] ... there's truly no "I" here, any longer, nor is there much thinking, and I thought {figure of speech} that we mutually understood, per our extensive dialog on the topic, as well as other posts in this thread, that none of us are camping out on the word "enlightenment" ..... it's simply a general term for the unutterably wonderful benefits experienced by some of us, as a result of practices, inquiry and knowing true nature.
I've actually learned a lot via this thread, and one thing I've learned is: in general, using the term "enlightenment" in reference to oneself, in any way, even if all the applicable qualifiers are included .... there's no me, it's not a fixed level, it's understood enlightenment is a general term for part of an ever-unfolding process, I'm not comparing my experience to anyone else's, I don't feel I've "attained" anything that's not available to and for all of us as our true nature, I was merely attempting to add my voice in extending a positive invitation, etc. etc. etc. ....... the term "enlightenment" (or "liberation", or any other term which implies that there can be actual success from practices, in a major way [8D]) is simply fraught with too much baggage for many people be able to take the simple, offered encouragement to heart (it seems).
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
You seem to think that you've arrived. That is fine. What if you haven't arrived? What if there is actually way more than you-know-who is teaching?
I don't "think I've arrived"; I've been describing my own experiencing ... quite possibly using terminology that might better have been expressed a different way.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
"Nirvikalpa samadhi" .... is the "primal unity free from thought constructs" ......... that's what those words mean.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Here is another link about nirvikalpa samadhi:
Sunday
LESSON 266
The Way after Realization
When a yoga guru brings others from darkness into light and from light into Self Realization, he is also strengthening his own golden body. When a satguru makes it easy for his sannyasins to remain in the practice of Self Realization, encouraging them and demanding of them the practice of nirvikalpa samadhi, he helps them hold their forces in check through the power of his golden body.
After nirvikalpa samadhi, the sannyasin has a choice to serve mankind or to wait for mankind to unfold into the consciousness that he has attained. This is called being a bodhisattva or upadeshi, one who serves, or an arahat or nirvani, one who waits. The golden body begins to grow through service and by bringing others into enlightenment as a bodhisattva, or through the constant practice of nirvikalpa samadhi while living a strictly secluded life as an arahat, only mixing with those of his own level of realization.
The sahasrara chakra at the top of the head and the ajna chakra at the brow, or the third eye, are the two controlling force centers of the soul body. These force centers become the two lowest chakras of the yoga master's new golden body, svarnasharira, as this body begins to build after his first nirvikalpa samadhi.
The usual experience before nirvikalpa samadhi is for the aspirant to become a knower of the Self. This could occur at any time during his training. In order to attain this experience of "touching into the Self," he must have a complete balance of all odic and actinic forces within him. A noted change in his life pattern often occurs after he becomes a knower of the Self, for the soul body has become released into orbit, and he has then a subsuperconscious control of this body. In other words, the odic-force tie has been released. This body has quickly matured. Then, if practicing contemplation as prescribed by his satguru and finally working out the various karmic binds or holds in the lower odic force field with the help of the guru, he attains complete Self Realization, or nirvikalpa samadhi. Then the golden body, svarnasharira, is born through the merging of the forces of the pituitary and the pineal gland, setting the sahasrara into a constant spinning motion. This constant spinning motion generates the force which propels the yoga adept back into nirvikalpa samadhi. Each time he goes into nirvikalpa samadhi he intensifies a little the spinning movement of this chakra, unfolding it a little more, and as this occurs, the golden body begins to build.
When the yoga adept touches into the Self and becomes a knower of the Self, attains nirvikalpa samadhi, becomes Self Realized, yoga powers come to him. These yoga powers are often renounced, depending upon the rule of the order to which he belongs, whether it be a teaching order or an order of hermits. According to the need, a power is developed. The powers that a yogi can use are as many as the petals within the sahasrara chakra. They are 1,008. These powers are conceived through the nadis -- small, elastic-like psychic nerve currents extending out into and through the aura of the body. The nadis work in conjunction with the chakras, and with the major currents of the body, ida, pingala and sushumna.
Realizing Parasiva gives you great power, but to use that power very sparingly or not at all is the greater thing to do, because the power itself works of its own accord. If you have powers, siddhis that are unfolded, it is best not to consciously use them. You can demonstrate to yourself to be sure you have them, but these siddhis are all connected with devonic forces that will work totally for righteousness without your demonstrating them. That is why no one wants to come up against a rishi. Similarly, a good king does not use his power. He makes everything flourish without appearing to be powerful. His greater power happens in unseen ways.
Remember, when the kundalini force becomes strong within you during a meditation, just sit and be aware that you are aware -- a blissful state called kaif in Shum, the language of meditation. You will feel very positive and experience yourself as a great big ball of energy. When the energy begins to wane, try to absorb it into every cell of your external body, then continue your meditation exactly where you left off. In this way you will build a strong, disciplined nerve system and subconscious mind. This will lead you naturally onto the next inner plateau, then to the next and the next.
Never allow yourself to be complacent in your spiritual attainments. Always continue to strive. Even rishis, swamis and yogis who have totally realized Parasiva continue to work on themselves from within themselves. They don't let down, because if they did it would be many years before they had the next experience of the timelessness, formlessness, spacelessness of the unspeakable Parasiva experience. The message, therefore, is, at the beginning of meditation and at the end, keep striving. Don't turn back, but proceed with confidence.
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-38.htm
Somewhat interesting .... but ultimately, I feel this article does a disservice.
It makes it seem as though there are requirements where there aren't any, and it makes it sound as though there are some very lofty levels and powers in connection with enlightenment, that limited mind can easily use as a yardstick to evaluate its own enlightenment, and/or that of others .... or lack thereof.
Enlightenment ... or anything else we may want to use as a term for the permanent dissolution of belief in, or reliance upon, any form of individual idea-self .... is simply how awareness/consciousness/being actually *is*.
Limited mind creates mental form ... it's what limited mind does ... and so, would be likely to use information such as the article above, to evaluate its concepts, and possibly even its experiences.
Ultimately, this dynamic (mind creating mental forms, based on memory, imagination and its evaluation of information) is (pun fully intended) self-regulating .... if limited mind isn't ready to release yet ... the light of pure awareness we each and all actually are now can't shine through yet, and experience can't radically change yet.
That's all.
Here's an article (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kaula) which highlights one of the key yogic paths (Kashmir Shaivism) that I resonate with, including where and how nirvikalpa samadhi fits into overall experiencing, and what the general parameters of the awareness-experience are.
As Yogani has said:
We favor experience over terms.
Maybe I don't experience nirvikalpa samadhi or sahaja samadhi.
I experience what I experience .... I don't really care what it's called, or in what language.
What I call nirvikalpa samadhi is simply awareness free of attachment to thought and free of experiencing the distortion of the artificial lens of subject-object-perception.
You may be correct in saying that Kirtanman doesn't experience nirvikalpa samadhi; it would be much more accurate to say that every so often, nirvikalpa samadhi experiences Kirtanman.
[:)]
Regarding the breathless state: this has surprisingly increased during meditation, in recent times ... but true breathlessness doesn't last super-long .... but still a lot longer than I ever would have thought possible, back when I was thinking.
I've never timed it; doesn't feel pertinent ..... realistically, maybe a handful of minutes, clock time, maximum .... when the breathless state is happening (which I do not equate with the state of nirvikalpa samadhi, by the way ... thought-free awareness happens when the physical body is still breathing; awareness is always breathless; all breathing in manifesting within awareness; not something "I" am doing) ... usually it's more like maybe thirty seconds, with a very short, mild breath cycle (maybe a second) ... an then, another thirty seconds, or minute or so.
Sometimes, it will happen for a handful of short "rounds" .... ten seconds breathless .... one second breath ... ten seconds breathless .... other times, more like thirty seconds or a minute ... other times ... maybe as much as two to three minutes, between any kind of breath; it's very interesting ... the stillness/expansiveness of awareness is very clear, for that eternal period of a few minutes.
[:)]
As far as I can tell, there wasn't a direct connection between what I'm calling nirvikalpa samadhi with the breathless state ... or with either of those states with what I'm terming "enlightenment" (full, permanent dissolution of the idea self; living spontaneously as loving, empty awareness).
I like Daniel Odier's (tantric author) way of phrasing the way breathing and samadhi relate: "the quasi-absence of breathing".
That's been my experience of how it is.
I first experienced what I'm calling nirvikalpa samadhi probably close to two years ago.
The breathless state maybe almost that long ago, as well.
Both increased .... as did samadhi in daily awareness.
I'm not sure if you understand what I've been saying (with respect to what I'm about to say) .... but what I'm terming enlightenment is "living la vida samadhi" ..... living from samadhi; as samadhi .... it never stops .... there's no longer a "Kirtanman" to be in or out of it (and so, if you want to be skeptical about an experience of mine, or say it's not possible, or find a bunch of information which says I'm outta my freakin' mind [:D] ..... there's the big one, right there!)
And ....... I *am* outta my freakin' mind ....... *finally*!!
[:D]
It's very nice.
I recommend it to all.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
is simply fraught with too much baggage for many people be able to take the simple, offered encouragement to heart (it seems).
Hi Kirtanman,
I hope that doesn't discourage you from encouraging which is a wonderful thing from my perspective.[:)] The delivery just needs to fit the mailbox.[:D]
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
When Yogani writes of enlightenment involving ecstasy, he's trying to give a general sense of how wonderful enlightenment is ... using one of the few terms that might serve to give limited mind any sense of what enlightenment might be like, in any way.
But Yogani does say that ecstasy is not only one of the milestones en-route to enlightenment, but that it is also an essential ingredient in the enlightenment equation, and that full realization cannot occur without it.
Hm ... "dunno". Maybe ask Yogani, if you feel you need further clarification.
[:)]
My point was basically: if someone is using "ecstasy" as some sort of a yardstick (i.e. "Well, I'm/you're not experiencing a state of ecstasy 24/7, so therefore, I'm/you're not enlightened) .... this is likely to keep limited mind in place, rather than to facilitate its final release.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
That's why it truly isn't pertinent to talk much about enlightenment, other than very generally ........ anyone not experiencing it can't understand it,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Is this a recent observation that you've made. [:D]
VERY.
Funny you should mention it!!
[8D]
Seriously: some *aspects* of enlightenment (like the "levels and models" discussion, in Enlightenment Milestones) are fine to talk about, and potentially mutually educational, it seems.
However, when someone (let's call him .... "Kirtanman" ....) says:
"Hey, everyone .... enlightenment is great!"
And the main response is: "No you're not!"
... "one wonders" if there might not be a better way to offer that same encouragement .....
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I don't remember the exact term he used. It may not have been "crappy", but you get the idea. [:)]
The point I was trying to make was that if Adyashanti is talking about realizing you are enlightened even when you are having a pretty grouchy morning, that has to be a stage before what Yogani refers to as "living in a fountain of ecstasy".
quote:
Originally written by Yogani
enlightenment is not some distant imaginary perfection, we each will find it to be much closer to what we are experiencing right now. It is very near, and with daily practices, getting nearer all the time. It is ... Now.
**
Does this mean an enlightened person can be grumpy?
**
Everyone has a choice on how they conduct their life -- both teachers and students. The enlightened and the nearly enlightened.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
If someone was living in a fountain of ecstasy, they probably wouldn't be having a pretty grouchy morning.
Please see quote from Yogani, above.
The point I was making, re: Adya's statement is "crappy day" is unlikely; "crappy moment" ... maybe ..... but it's a totally different experience than when thinking mind is running the show.
Body-minds react; emotions and conditioned responses arise, in the same way that if an itch occurs, scratching happens ..... but there's no thinking about it, and hence, it dissolves almost instantly, and/or there's no attachment to it.
Adya has also said: "You get sick, there are rough days at work, whatever .... but you don't care."
Which was his context and point ... and Yogani's, I would say.
I've also read Nisargadatta's teaching on this .... (and seen it; watch him on YouTube ... he's clearly from the "yelling and emphatically gesturing" school of Advaita! [:D]) ......... and they, and I, are all saying the same thing:
Without attachment to, or undue belief in conditioned mind/ego ... and with it therefore arising a very, very small percentage of the time it used to ... and with the awareness that it has nothing to do with the true self (the experiencing awareness), and the inability for belief in it to any longer arise ...... it's all a whole different ballgame.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I do get what you are saying about enlightenment not having anything to do with experiences or emotions. But on one level it does. If someone is getting angry a lot, or depressed or miserable or grumpy, then there has to be a certain degree of identification with the egoic self for those emotions to be brought about. Someone has to be still buying into the story of limited self, to find something to be angry about, or grumpy about.
100% agreed ... and no enlightened teacher I know of, including Adyashanti, Yogani or Nisargadatta, has ever equated enlightenment with that type of conditioned response/ego .... and I'm quite confident they would each agree with your statement, above.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
As Anthem pointed out above, this buying into the story can happen on quite a subtle level, in the senses of “I’m enlightened” (identification) or “I’m not the one who is angry, that’s just the body/mind” (disassociation).
Christi
Yes, again ... agreed.
And, it's likely difficult or impossible to truly be able to tell if anyone else is engaged in identification and dissociation .... or enlightenment (or whatever you want to call the non-limited-self experience we're discussing).
In my own experiencing, now ... there's simply no ongoing attachment; there may be conditioned reaction of some type for a moment ... but it does go with the body-mind, in the same way that, say, a headache might be upsetting when thinking-mind feels like the self ... but when a certain amount of inner silence has been opened into ... events like that aren't upsetting.
Basically: as yogis and yoginis experience relating to body with less and less attachment, in the awareness I'm referring to/from ... there's relating to limited mind with essentially no attachment, as well.
And this is another reason why it's not pertinent to really try to describe it:
Others tend to question and challenge (which is something I personally don't mind; "conditioning here" is truly very comfortable discussing "whatever" .... and at length .... this thread being a fine example indeed ... [8D]) ... and the conversation begins to go in circles, in a way that's quite possibly not helpful for anyone (specifically those who are .... what? ... considering accepting the invitation?)
It seems like this:
I say "Hey, everyone; c'mon over and enjoy this great banquet! It's fun, it's free ... and it's your banquet, too!"
And responses range from:
"You're not having a banquet!"
to
"Well, it says here that 'there ain't no such thing as a free lunch' ... what about that?"
to
"Well, you could be deluding yourself into thinking you're having a banquet ...."
to which I respond (in a somewhat muffled manner, due to talking around a piece of succulent escargot that I nabbed from a passing serving tray) ... "Mmph ..mm .. yeah .. could be ....!!")
[8D]
And then I figure ... Oh, what's the harm .... I'll give a little more detail ....
... and I upload some pictures, maybe even a little video of the festivities ... and a Google Map ...
And hear:
"Google maps aren't like that; the roads don't look that way .... see, this other banquet-giver posted a Google map .... and his looks completely different ... so you aren't having a banquet!"
I shrug, nab some non-alcoholic champagne (just my preference; there's the "real stuff", too, for anyone who wants any ... there's .... well, everything ....[:)]) ... and move back out on to the dance floor ... smiling over my shoulder .... "It is 24/7 ... all of 'em ... so get here when you like .... and take your time; heck, take mine too ... I certainly don't need it any more!!"
[:D]
And ... truly seriously: one thing I've truly "gotten" recently ... and in part, due to this thread ..... the only motivation here, now really is to "invite" .... when idea-self dissolve, the inviting naturally arises .... it's just true; it's just what's happening ... and I have no idea if this is "enlightenment" ... and candidly, I don't care; there aren't any ideas about anything, any longer ... including the one who used to think, and think about what others thought, and what-not.
[:)]
However, whatever this shift can be called .... it's true, it's good and it's beautiful .... and there's a very deep felt sense that AYP had a very direct hand in helping to bring it (this experiencing) about.
And there's a very deep felt sense that you ... the reader of these words ... whoever you may be ... can join me ... join all of us who are "here", wherever "here" may be (whatever you might call it) .... and those of you who are willing, can get here quickly now ... and when you do .... you'll naturally feel the arising of the action (not the desire or intention; just the action) of inviting and including all, too.
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
[:)]
_/\\_
Kirtanman
-
Hi Kirtanman,
Ok. You win. :) I'm not going to say anything bad about your personal friend and mentor, Adyashanti. Suffice it to say that his teachings are not for me. If I want to read about Zen, I will read this little book I have. At least it is consistent. And if I want to refresh myself on clever non-dualism, I will consult Tolle. :) And if I want to stretch my brain I will remember Hegelian dialectics..
Lately I'm thinking stillness is not what will enlighten me because stillness is pretty black to me. I'm thinking that merging into and beyond the light will. :)
You are right! Your version of nivikalpa samadhi from that link and my version are probably not the same. In my version, you actually die, your heart quits beating and you can stay like that for many days if you wanted to. Experiences count more than words. You said it. You must have been a lawyer in a previous life... paid by the word..:)
This is yet another definition of enlightenment, and I rather like it because it refers specifically to light:
quote:
We drop off the intellect. We drop off the instinctive actions and reactions. The only thing we want to keep is the physical body and the body of the soul. And that is the path that we are on. And when this begins to happen, when the beautiful, refined body of light and the physical body merge as one, we see light all the way through the physical body, right into the feet, into the hands, through the head, through the torso, through the spine. We're just walking in a sea of light.
This inner light is so beautiful. All day long my head has been filled with light. It feels that if I were to reach up and put both hands around the top of my head, there wouldn't be a head there. It feels like there is nothing there. It just goes on and on and on into endless space, as I look back up within the head. When I look into the back of my neck, I see an array of, they look like, wires, and these, of course, are the nerve currents that run through the spinal cord. They're all bright and active and scintillating, drawing energy from the central source of energy. And, of course, if you looked into the central source of energy, what would you see? You would see light coming out of nothing. That's what it looks like, light coming out of nothing.
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-02.html
Do you see that too?
In your awakening, did you not realize any of the the bolded characteristics in the following quote?:
quote:
The only change that occurs is the awakening of the sahasrara chakra and the perspective that a mind has which has undone itself, transcended itself in formless Being and Non-Being, and then returned to the experiences of form. The experiences are all still there, but never again are they binding. The fire or life energy, which rises in the normal person high enough to merely digest the food eaten, rises to the top of the enlightened man's head, burns through a seal there, and his consciousness has gone with it. He is definitely different from an ordinary person. He died. He was reborn. He is able and capable of knowing many things without having to read books or listen to others speak their knowledge at him. His perceptions are correct, unclouded and clear. His thoughts manifest properly in all planes of consciousness -- instinctive, intellectual and superconscious or spiritual. He lives now, fully present in all he does.
The internal difference that makes a soul a jnani is that he knows who he is and who you are. He knows Truth, and he knows the lie. Another difference is that he knows his way around within the inner workings of the mind. He can travel here and there with his own 747, without extraneous external conveyances. He knows the goings-on in far-off places. He is consciously conscious of his own karma and dharma and that of others. For him there is no apartness, due to his attainment within the chakras previously described. His only gift to others, to the world, would be blessings, an outpouring of energy to all beings from the higher planes where he resides. It is the jnani, the enlightened being, who sees beyond duality and knows the oneness of all. He is the illumined one, filled with light, filled with love. He sees God everywhere, in all men. He is the one who simply is and who sees no differences. That is his difference.
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-01.html
For, if you were sincerely trying to help me realize, then should you not be able to know my karma and past lives, where I am at now and simply perscribe the right formula tailored for my current state of attainment? Isn't that what these monks are saying?
And finally, here is a very interesting little bit from those same celibate monks that live in Hawaii:
quote:
Saturday
LESSON 41
Superconscious Signposts
When your awareness is in superconsciousness, you see yourself as pure life force flowing through people, through trees, through everything. I have seen myself, in a certain state of samadhi, as pure life force flowing through a jungle, through trees, through plants, through water, through air. That is superconsciousness. It is so permanent. It is so real. Nothing could touch it. Nothing could hurt it. In this state we see the external world as a dream, and things begin to look transparent to us. People begin to look transparent. This is superconsciousness. When we look at a physical object and we begin to see it scintillating in light as it begins to become transparent, this is superconsciousness. It is a very beautiful and natural state to be in.
Occasionally, in deep meditation we see the head filled with an intense light, and we know that that is the natural state of man.
This is superconsciousness: when we can look at another person and know what he is thinking and how he is feeling and how his subconscious is programmed. While we are looking at him, all of a sudden he can be seen in a past life, or in the future, or in the eternity of the moment. You are so naturally, without striving, in the superconscious area of the mind. No technique can give you these experiences that you unfold into as you walk the path toward merger. You come right into them, and the experience is how you are. Occasionally, when you close your eyes in meditation, you may see the face of your guru or some divine being that possibly once lived on Earth, and now just the shell of his subtle body remains vibrating in the ethers. You see superconscious beings while in the superconscious area of the mind. Occasionally you clairaudiently hear voices singing, music playing, just as Beethoven heard his wonderful symphonies that he recorded like a scribe. It is the superconscious mind again, so near, so real, so vibrant.
And when you are in contemplation, so engrossed in the energies within you
-- within the physical body and the energy within that, and that within that -- that you become totally engrossed in the peace of the central source of all energy, that too is superconsciousness. Being on the brink of Self Realization, having lost consciousness of the physical body and of being a mind, you are only conscious of a vast, bluish white light. You get into this through going into the clear white light and out through the other side of it. Then you come into pure consciousness. It is a vast, pure, pale bluish white light -- endless, endless inner space. It is just on the brink of the Absolute, just on the brink of the fullness of Self Realization. When you are in this beautiful, blissful state of pure consciousness, you are barely conscious that you are there, because to have a consciousness of being conscious, you have to be conscious of another thing.
These are some of the wonderful signposts on the path, all within your immediate grasp in this life, just as the ability to play the vina or the flute beautifully in this life is within your immediate grasp. It takes practice, following the rules and then more practice.
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-06.html
Perhaps you have attained superconsciousness?
One last comment, if you say that you have no more ego, then who am I communicating with? Who is it that desires?
Again, thanks for your time.
:)
TI
Truth is where you find it. Truth is not validated by it's source. Even a fool can speak truth and a wise man can utter nonsense.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and pretty soon you're competing with him at the same fishing hole.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
quote:
is simply fraught with too much baggage for many people be able to take the simple, offered encouragement to heart (it seems).
Hi Kirtanman,
I hope that doesn't discourage you from encouraging which is a wonderful thing from my perspective.[:)] The delivery just needs to fit the mailbox.[:D]
Hi Anthem,
No discouragement here .... just a happy sense that this entire dialog is potentially a good thing .... including the "talking about how we're talking about things" part.
"The delivery just needs to fit the mailbox."
That's one of those "could be pertinent on several levels, if it's allowed to be" kinda statements.
[:D]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Kirtanman,
Ok. You win. :)
That's funny, TI .... I literally almost wrote those same words to you, earlier today!
No particular reason I didn't; it just didn't happen.
It seems, though, that maybe we experience each other's communication styles and each other's perspective ... in a similar way.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I'm not going to say anything bad about your personal friend and mentor, Adyashanti.
Okay.
[:)]
Just please know:
I don't care if you do.
I don't have any attachment to positive or negative expressions concerning Adyashanti, or anyone else.
I presume everyone here just offers their honest perspective and experiences regarding a certain teacher; I simply do the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Suffice it to say that his teachings are not for me. If I want to read about Zen, I will read this little book I have. At least it is consistent. And if I want to refresh myself on clever non-dualism, I will consult Tolle. :) And if I want to stretch my brain I will remember Hegelian dialectics..
Sounds like a plan; enjoy!
(Jeez; you don't like Tolle, either? [8D])
What's so unattractive about the plainly-spoken experience of non-duality?
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
You are right! Your version of nivikalpa samadhi from that link and my version are probably not the same.
Ya know .... I noticed that, too!
Hey .... we agree on something!
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
In my version, you actually die, your heart quits beating and you can stay like that for many days if you wanted to. Experiences count more than words. You said it. You must have been a lawyer in a previous life... paid by the word..:)
Even worse, actually .......
... *Marketing* ...!!
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This is yet another definition of enlightenment, and I rather like it because it refers specifically to light:
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
We drop off the intellect. We drop off the instinctive actions and reactions. The only thing we want to keep is the physical body and the body of the soul. And that is the path that we are on. And when this begins to happen, when the beautiful, refined body of light and the physical body merge as one, we see light all the way through the physical body, right into the feet, into the hands, through the head, through the torso, through the spine. We're just walking in a sea of light.
A couple years back, I had some stuff like this.
I see the dropping of "instinctive actions and reactions" as "enlightenmentary-sleight-of-hand" ... every body-mind still has them, even the enlightened ones; awareness is just free from feeling like they're "mine" ... because the idea of "mine" is gone.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This inner light is so beautiful. All day long my head has been filled with light. It feels that if I were to reach up and put both hands around the top of my head, there wouldn't be a head there. It feels like there is nothing there. It just goes on and on and on into endless space, as I look back up within the head. When I look into the back of my neck, I see an array of, they look like, wires, and these, of course, are the nerve currents that run through the spinal cord.
The description is a bit "Alien vs. Predator" for me, but hey ... nice scenery, nonetheless.
I maybe forgot to mention .... you do/likely will pass through a lot of scenery on the way here .... to what I'm talking about; to what Yogani is talking about; it's just not that interesting ... but it is when it happens.
I'm not kidding when I say yoga gives you experiences better than the combination of the best sex and the best drugs *combined* ... I've posted about it (and yes, I know what I'm talking about, per comparison to those two "activity sets") ... all that "flamboyant ecstasy" is still at the level of temporary experience and form though; it's available ... it's just not interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
They're all bright and active and scintillating, drawing energy from the central source of energy. And, of course, if you looked into the central source of energy, what would you see? You would see light coming out of nothing. That's what it looks like, light coming out of nothing.
It's even better from the standpoint of being the nothing, emanating the light; the first one you see ..... the second one ..... you feel.
It's amazing .... but it's still just an experience.
[:)]
I spent a fair amount of time in meditation, getting how consciousness actually emanates from ground-of-being ... really experiencing the levels of manifestation and return.
It was worthwhile on one level; not even that thrilling, though ... I was beyond being thrilled as much, as that point ... as having a sincere sense of "Cool ... now we get to see how it *works*."
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
In your awakening, did you not realize any of the the bolded characteristics in the following quote?:
The only change that occurs is the awakening of the sahasrara chakra and the perspective that a mind has which has undone itself, transcended itself in formless Being and Non-Being, and then returned to the experiences of form. The experiences are all still there, but never again are they binding.
This one, yes; it's what I've been pointing to in different words ... I've just been talking about the resulting shift in experiencing of each moment ... rather than the initial experience, which was some time back.
The "unbinding" didn't happen all at once, or immediately, though.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
The fire or life energy, which rises in the normal person high enough to merely digest the food eaten, rises to the top of the enlightened man's head, burns through a seal there, and his consciousness has gone with it. He is definitely different from an ordinary person. He died. He was reborn.
Okay; yeah ... energetically/figuratively ... sure.
I talked about exactly this with Metta, I think it was, recently.
I just described it in less flamboyant terms.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
He is able and capable of knowing many things without having to read books or listen to others speak their knowledge at him. His perceptions are correct, unclouded and clear. His thoughts manifest properly in all planes of consciousness -- instinctive, intellectual and superconscious or spiritual. He lives now, fully present in all he does.
I would say so; though I realize opinions may well vary.
[:D]
It *feels* that way, though; the essence of all spiritual teachings are known in experiencing .... that's why the sense of not needing the information arises; all we need to know is what we are, now.
And ... I'll need to answer the rest of this, later.
Whether or not you agree with my comments, I hope the description of my experiences is helpful.
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
ENLIGHTENMENT VS MIRACLES- (I swore I wasn't going to get involved with this, but I hate to see it continue. You guys are so smart, so well read, that you have TOO much information--you're making something so simple into this big convoluted, mystical, magical, confusing mess...)
To Tibetan_Ice: I love the fact that you said, "I am deadly serious." I believe it takes THAT kind of a commitment to wake up. For myself, I gave away everything I owned that wouldn't fit inside an old RV, hit the road, left my family and friends, lived off savings while I traveled and wrote and contemplated and focused on the my spiritual development, and--when I only had about 6 months worth of savings left--said "F*ck it, I failed," and completely gave up.
I thought, "I've got about 6 months left to live, so, since I didn't find inner peace, I'm just going clean up this life to help make my next life better." As soon as I surrendered like that (read, "deadly serious"), my three-week awakening began. (see the "Transition" series on my blog for more info on this.)
To Everyone: If you want to wake up, you've got to stop playing games and get serious.
It's not about GAINING. It's not about ADDING. It's not about LEARNING. It's not about THINKING.
It's about QUITTING. It's about LETTING GO. It's about DROPPING.
You wake up by QUESTIONING every ASSUMPTION you have ABOUT YOURSELF. You wake up by LOOKING and saying, "Oh, that's not right. I was mistaken. How could I have been so stupid?"
Now I'm no expert in Yoga, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen, Gnostic Christianity, or Kabbalah, but I do know what I mean by enlightenment:
Enlightenment is when you no longer identify with (think of yourself as) the personal self.
It's as simple as that. Everything else is just BS--just more noise, more fantasy, more illusion...more crap for you to cling to and TRY TO ACHIEVE. F*ck that! You don't need it! It's not about ADDING to yourself. It's about REVEALING yourself. It's about DROPPING all the dirt and muck and garbage that has been accumulating on you since the day you were born.
In Zen (maybe Buddhism?), they call waking up "walking through the Gateless Gate." When the personal self vaporizes, you are able to walk through what seemed an impenetrable barrier.
Before enlightenment, it feels like there is this huge wall (the personal self) blocking you from realization. After enlightenment, you look back at that wall and see there is nothing there (the wall--the personal self--was a mirage): The Gateless Gate.
Does this mean (re: Christi), once one drops the personal self, that they stop growing? Not at all. But here's the rub...Does my (Wayne's) future growth matter to me? Not one bit. Why? Because there is no personal self. I could care less. I am just this moment talking. I am just these fingers typing. I am...what is happening right now.
Can I hold my breath for 24 hours? Nope. Can I walk on water? Nope. Can I heal the sick? Nope. Can I teleport myself into Tibetan_Ice's house and speak to him in Swahili? Nope. Will I ever be able to do these amazing things? Who knows? (Doubt it.) But miracles have nothing to do with enlightenment, and focusing on the miracles will cause you nothing but frustration.
Many of the posts on this thread has been confusing TWO DIFFERENT THINGS: Enlightenment with Miracles. Many people can perform "miracles"--telekinesis, ESP, reiki, etc. Most ARE NOT enlightened (they still believe in--and act from--their personal story). Most LIVING (verifiable) enlightened people CANNOT perform miracles. Enlightenment and Miracles are two separate and distinct things--they are not linked.
When an enlightened person hits his thumb with a hammer, his "perpetual ecstasy" flies out the window with his swearing, howling and jumping up and down. Perpetual Ecstasy? A bedtime story told to children that has somehow run amok. Stomp on the toe of anyone who claims to live in "perpetual ecstasy" and see if you still believe them.
By focusing on the miracles, you are focusing on mysticism. On a belief--whether they are miracles of Advanced Yoga, Kundalini, Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism, Judaism, Islam. If you haven't experienced first-hand any of the miracles mentioned in these belief systems, then you are just GUESSING that those miracles are true. Maybe they are true, but you really don't KNOW.
I get pissed off at "spiritual teachers" who focus on the miraculous. Why? Because gullible students that hope to achieve these miracles waste years and years of their lives in pursuit of something that even their "teachers" can't perform for them. Stop wasting your time with "miracles."
You have to ask yourself, "What part of me WANTS to believe in these miracles? What part of me wants to be able to PERFORM them?"
I don't. I am this moment. I could care less about miracles. I will never suffer again because only the personal self suffers and Wayne Wirs (the personal self) doesn't exist anymore. I am free of all the drama. I am alive--more alive than I have ever been. What more can I ask for? Miracles? Who needs them? More importantly, who WANTS them?
I am Wayne, not Wayne Wirs. I am a sound (Wayne) happening right now, not some old and dusty adventure story (Wayne Wirs).
If you want to wake up, then forget the miracles. Who in their right mind cares about miracles? Your ego does (your first name and last name), but not YOU (the SOUND of your first name).
Most spiritually "knowledgeable" people (like on this forum) tend to focus on their PHD while they are still in junior high. You remember that kid in school who was so smart that he skipped a few grades? He missed the prom, he never had his first kiss until college, he never fit in. He was smart, but he wasn't wise (experienced). Forget the miracles. Focus on dropping the personal self. What happens after that is just gravy.
Practice seeing your Ego Story (Wayne Wirs) and your Ego Gorilla (your self-centered fears and desires) and start DISTANCING YOURSELF FROM THEM. The clearer you see them, the easier they will be to drop.
Once you drop them (the Story and the Gorilla), you'll automatically wake up.
Once you wake up, you'll never suffer again--and I guarantee you, once you wake up, you won't give a damn about miracles either.
And that's all I have to say about that subject. Take care.
-
Hi Wayne,
Welcome to the forum [:)]
Christi
-
Hi Wayne,
Welcome to the forum!! I've read a lot of the stuff on your site...inspirational story...and great photographs too[:)][:)][:)][:)][:)]
-
(((HIGH FIVE))) Wayne .... Welcome to the Forum!!
[:D]
And hey ... if you do end up with only one post here, period .... I'm glad it's this one.
[:)]
To ALL: I agree with everything Wayne says; it's my experience, too; that's why I dove into this dialog in the first place ... to add my voice and invitation to Wayne's.
Conditioning here (the "sound of Kirtanman") is just "nicer" than the sound of Wayne ... and nicer is not always better -- and it makes for much longer conversations.
[:)]
Sometimes telling is like it is ... like it really is ... is what's needed .... and Wayne did just that; thank you, Wayne.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
"Once you wake up, you'll never suffer again--and I guarantee you, once you wake up, you won't give a damn about miracles either.
~Wayne Wirs
"True that!"
~Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Seriously: some *aspects* of enlightenment (like the "levels and models" discussion, in Enlightenment Milestones) are fine to talk about, and potentially mutually educational, it seems.
However, when someone (let's call him .... "Kirtanman" ....) says:
"Hey, everyone .... enlightenment is great!"
And the main response is: "No you're not!"
... "one wonders" if there might not be a better way to offer that same encouragement .....
Or, it could be more like someone (let's call him Kirtanman again) says, "I'm enlightened",
and the main response is: "there isn't really a place where you can make that claim from"
and: "there isn't really a person who could make that claim anyway",
then I think that's some good advice. It might just be a semantic thing, but sometimes semantics are important.
From where I'm at right now, both those statements seem true.
You might be able to take some solice in the fact that Jesus Christ was given a much harder time when he said he was the Son of God. Luckily we are living in more enlightened times now, and you just get the third degree on an internet forum. [:D]
Christi
-
Hi Wayne :)
Welcome to the forum.
Thank you very much for your comments. I really appreciate it.
quote:
It's about QUITTING. It's about LETTING GO. It's about DROPPING.
Not that this is the only valid method, but, I believe it is about trying your absolute hardest for as long as you can and then LETTING GO, QUITTING, GIVING UP. That seems to be the pattern for Tolle, Adyashanti and many others. For example, before Adyashanti's realization he had spent an entire day pushing himself and his consciousness/energy/willpower by focusing on what he was currently in the near presence of, saying "This is a chair", "This is a table", "This is a wall". Adya says that by the end of the day, he felt like he had literally overloaded his consciousness.
There are many mentions of training your attention to be continuous, 24/7, because that is the first part of it. And, this is very hard to do. It requires great willpower, strength and energy. I believe that that is the purpose of mindfulness. For example, now I believe that the first night when I did not sleep at all and saw the inside of my body as a field of bright light, it was because I had tried 'smiling' continuously for as long as could throughout the previous day.
So, you make a massive effort. Then, when you have given it your best and there is nothing left to give, you let go and give up. You need the effort and determination to make the carrot swing away from you. Then, when you stop, the carrot swings back and pops into your mouth. If you make a little effort, you might catch a nip of the carrot... It depends on effort.
Perhaps you will agree.
quote:
Enlightenment is when you no longer identify with (think of yourself as) the personal self.
It's as simple as that. Everything else is just BS--just more noise, more fantasy, more illusion...more crap for you to cling to and TRY TO ACHIEVE. F*ck that! You don't need it! It's not about ADDING to yourself. It's about REVEALING yourself. It's about DROPPING all the dirt and muck and garbage that has been accumulating on you since the day you were born.
In Zen (maybe Buddhism?), they call waking up "walking through the Gateless Gate." When the personal self vaporizes, you are able to walk through what seemed an impenetrable barrier.
Before enlightenment, it feels like there is this huge wall (the personal self) blocking you from realization. After enlightenment, you look back at that wall and see there is nothing there (the wall--the personal self--was a mirage): The Gateless Gate.
Does this mean (re: Christi), once one drops the personal self, that they stop growing? Not at all. But here's the rub...Does my (Wayne's) future growth matter to me? Not one bit. Why? Because there is no personal self. I could care less. I am just this moment talking. I am just these fingers typing. I am...what is happening right now.
Very nice description.
Thank you for this :)
You have to ask yourself, "What part of me WANTS to believe in these miracles? What part of me wants to be able to PERFORM them?"
Exactly. On the way up, miracles can be a hinderence but they may also appear as sign posts post to tell you you are on the right path. Miracles also help shatter your ego, especially when you take part in one!
However, after the ego dissolves there is nobody left to desire or perform feats that would gratify the ego. If someone were to claim credit for any psychic feats or miracles, then this would indicate that the ego had not been dissolved or surrendered to God (or whatever you'd like to call it). However, miracles can be the passing of the divine flow through your open gate in order to influence and affect the forms in creation. Simply put, God works through you.
Again, thank you for posting. I wish you all the best.
:)
TI
Oh, is it you that has the two black African tall and pointy warrior shields and spears hanging in your living room or is that Kirtanman.. ? next to the Yogi Tea cup..
-
Hi TI,
quote:
However, miracles can be the passing of the divine flow through your open gate in order to influence and affect the forms in creation. Simply put, God works through you.
This is my experience also. There seems to come a point where people begin to become a channel of divine love flowing into the world. This is the real miracle and is there for everyone to see. [8D]
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Or, it could be more like someone (let's call him Kirtanman again) says, "I'm enlightened",
and the main response is: "there isn't really a place where you can make that claim from"
and: "there isn't really a person who could make that claim anyway",
then I think that's some good advice. It might just be a semantic thing, but sometimes semantics are important.
Well, yeah (and I appreciate these comments, by the way) ..... *but* ..... it's interesting to me that despite the fact that I've both proactively and in response stated my agreement to both of your points, cited-yet-again above [:)] ... namely:
*Of course there's no "me" to be enlightened; per Wayne's post (and, possibly, a few of mine .... maybe even a few of yours ... and Anthem's ... and Yogani's) ..... the dropping of the idea-me *is* the defining point of enlightenment .... because the defining *quality* of enlightenment is "freedom from suffering" ... and the only condition that can bring that about is awareness of "me-as-story".
*Of course there's no end or cessation of relative living ... and so (relatively) no "fixed place" to state of as enlightenment in the "I've arrived" sense.
Yet ..... there's still the whole "third degree" thing ... but actually, not from a lot of people.
I think I get it, though: it's mostly a "social dynamics" thing.
If I did/do ever start a web site, or write books or whatever .. or if you, or TI, or whoever, do ... there's the "inherent authority" of being the leader (i.e. Yogani, or Adyashanti, with respect to his Sangha) .... but in Adya's case, as I posted ... people who knew him for a long time still gave him a hard time, or doubted the authenticity of his realization.
As Wayne pointed out, a *huge* part of this issues stems from the mythologizing of enlightenment (over the centuries, and by many modern spiritual teachers, as well) ... people feel like someone they know/know of, can't "be enlightened", because:
A. "Enlightenment isn't like that!"
&
B. "No 'regular person' ... especially not someone I basically know, and who is part of my same group ... can 'be enlightened' ... especially because I can't ... er 'am not'" ..... (etc. etc. etc.)
....... which some of us are simply trying to un-do ... because, in so doing .... more will be able to enjoy it, and sooner.
Now, limited mind will always chew on stuff like this .... so, the best we can do, it seems ... is do our best to point beyond limited mind.
Which was my intention in the first place.
[:)]
I was going to say "but my choice of words may have been poor" ... but that's actually not true; this has been a good dialog ... and one that's potentially helpful for quite a few people, I'd say .... possibly even more for anyone simply reading it, than any of us who have been involved in it.
The whole world can change because of this (enlightenment; living from authentic consciousness), actually ..... everything that ails humankind is due to being mired in untrue concepts; what we're calling "enlightenment" (in this thread, at AYP, on Wayne's site, etc.) ... is just the end of that belief in untrue concepts ... beginning with the one that's the cause of all the others: "the story of me".
Nearly everyone here knows me to be sincere and straightforward, if a bit long-winded.
If I haven't said "Hey, everyone ... check out my lofty attainment!" ... in three years ..... I'm *probably* not gonna start now.
[8D]
My intention was/is just to share my experience ... and my sense of what's possible.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi TI,
I told you I'd respond to the rest of your post ... but I'm not going to the do "line by line" thing; it's not helpful for either of us.
If I'm "trying to help" you realize, I'll do exactly what I'm doing: posting authentically as a fellow forum member.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Perhaps you have attained superconsciousness?
Superconsciousness is just thoughtless awareness; it's no big deal.
In AYP, we call it inner silence.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
One last comment, if you say that you have no more ego, then who am I communicating with? Who is it that desires?
I have no idea.
[:)]
You seemed to resonate with Wayne's answers; I've been saying the same things he has ... just less directly; I'm very glad he posted; I hope it really was helpful for you.
All I care about here is the result:
Let's help everyone get this (enlightenment) and live it.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
This is my experience also. There seems to come a point where people begin to become a channel of divine love flowing into the world. This is the real miracle and is there for everyone to see. [8D]
Christi
Hi Christi :)
A while back I realized that Jesus/God work in mysterious ways. I realized that the sequence and timing of daily events were being influenced by this divine flow. It does not only come through people, but through all forms and their motion. When you go with the greater flow, all of a sudden life becomes magical. :)
quote:
On the subject of the transition from oneness (unity consciousness) to Christ consciousness, I found this written by Tau malachi on the four stages of the evolution of the soul, which I thought you may find interesting:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rauch
Rauch is our spirit or intelligence... there are two distinct manifestations of Rauch. They are called the upper Rauch and the lower Rauch. The lower Rauch is the normal human intelligence which is oriented to the... external world...
The upper Rauch is oriented to the Neshamah and to the divine. As a result, it is an awareness of the ocean of spirituality, which surrounds us- awareness of the play of spiritual or cosmic forces, the metaphysical dimensions of reality, and God's holy Shekinah (presence and power) within and behind everything that transpires.
At this level we begin to get a sense of God's will for our soul- the mission of our soul. We are also able to receive the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to receive communication from the divine powers, and to experience higher states of consciousness well beyond the ordinary level.
Reaching the level of upper Rauch more and more, we find ourselves guided by the spirit and moved by the spirit. At the highest levels, we can experience unification with the Holy Spirit... which is a prophetic state of consciousness in which a person feels him or herself completely elevated and transformed.
When the level of upper Rauch is present in a person, they are rightly called a spiritual or holy person, for more than a godly soul, he or she is a Spirit-filled soul.
Neshamah
At the level of Neshamah, one experiences the radiant holy breath of God. Neshamah is the vessel that holds the spiritual power that God wants to give us... Nefesh forms a material body, but the Neshamah forms a body of light or heavenly image. This is an angelic image... the image of one's Christ self or future self. It is this divine image resembling a human being that prophets behold in the peak of their divine visions.
The enlightenment experience begins at the level of Rauch, but enlightenment and liberation proper correspond to the level of Neshamah... It is at this level that a true Messianic consciousness dawns and the Christ-self is realized. While many initiates attain the level of Rauch, relatively few attain the level of Neshamah.
Hayyah
The Hayyah is the most subtle life-force or living essence- so heavenly that it has little connection with the body and dwells mostly in other realms. It is the radiant holy breath of God that is experienced at the level of Neshamah. Yet at the level of hayyah, the holy breath is completely within God and one who experiences this presence and power experiences a conscious unification with God.
Most individuals will only gain the awareness of Hayyah in altered states. In these rare moments of peak experience, it is as though one is light in an ocean of light- the world of supernal light being experienced within and all around oneself. Quite literally one sees and experiences everything as this light-force....
While many initiates may experience something of Hayyah in peak mystical experience, the actual attainment of Hayyah is very rare. The power of the Hayyah is the power to resurrect the dead. Very few masters have walked the earth with this divine power...
Yechidah
There is an even higher level of the soul of light than Hayyah. It is called Yechidah- the holy or divine spark. It is a grade of unification beyond Hayyah of which nothing can really be said. One who attains this level is the light of all the worlds and is the way, truth and life. This is the essence of the spiritual sun- the Christos- Christ...
If Hayyah represents enlightenment proper and Yechidach is something beyond that holy attainment, then something subtle and profound is being said of enlightenment. What appears to us as a supreme or ultimate attainment is, in truth, but the beginning of a whole new level of evolution to which there is no end in sight." [Tau malachi, Gnosis of the Cosmic Christ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for posting this. I read it during a break at work. After I read it I was engulfed with bliss/tingles and I started seeing the forms and objects around me as if they had a super bright white light inside of their cells and the light was bursting out. The effect lasted over an hour and I didn't get much work done. I had to make a terrific effort to return to normal vision.
Then, that night, I did not sleep at all (2'nd time). Same thing, I watched the inside of my head, bright white light shining, then a nightmare, then more watching myself sleep.. However I seem to be fine now. I think there is a correspondence between those events..
:)
TI
-
Hi Kirtanman. :)
I must say that I do appreciate your corresponding with me. It has been very helpful for me to understand the distinctions between various types of experiences.
I especially liked your description of your practices, that you posted on the split-off thread in response to emc. It is good to know that eventually you made an effort to maintain constant awareness throughout the day. It is also good to know that behind that stream of thoughts there was emptiness.
I have no doubt that your awakening is valid for you and despite the fact that it does not compare to the other types of experiences that I have found in classic Vedanta texts, that in no way takes away from your experience. It helps to clarify my misconceptions about terminology and concepts. It has also taught me to be forever on guard that perhaps the meaning behind my words are not the same as others'.
The thing that I find fascinating is that, after the lights turn on, or the personal center of being shifts from the ego centre to that infinite expanse of awareness, there still seems to be a very human person in there along with all their idiosyncrasies and personality traits. Kind of reminds me of the "Men in Black" show where the little alien is controlling the body from inside the head, pulling levers and mechanisms to make the body seem alive.. :)
Thanks again. I certainly do appreciate the time and effort that you have put into your posts to me.
:)
TI
-
Welcome to AYP and thanks for the great post Wayne.
"Enlightenment is when you no longer identify with (think of yourself as) the personal self."
Yep! The great and lovely paradox, "there is nothing now because now there is everything"
-
Like it or not, bliss and siddhis are complement of real enlightenment.
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Thank you for posting this. I read it during a break at work. After I read it I was engulfed with bliss/tingles and I started seeing the forms and objects around me as if they had a super bright white light inside of their cells and the light was bursting out. The effect lasted over an hour and I didn't get much work done. I had to make a terrific effort to return to normal vision.
Then, that night, I did not sleep at all (2'nd time). Same thing, I watched the inside of my head, bright white light shining, then a nightmare, then more watching myself sleep.. However I seem to be fine now. I think there is a correspondence between those events..
Yogani has talked about this a few times.
In this lesson he talks about seeing white light everywhere:
"The manifestation of truth won't be exactly the same for everyone. So, picking a specific vision to strive for could be a mistake. Maybe some will never see a tunnel or star. Maybe they just zoom through at some point and it is all pure white light. Or maybe some other kinds of colors, and then the white light. Maybe no white light, and just more and more ecstasy, until one day, boom! And white light is everywhere inside and outside the body. It can happen many different ways, depending on the unique purification process going on in each person. No one can tell how it should be for every person. For this reason we don't worry much about visions in these lessons. We do the practices every day that we know encourage the nervous system to purify and open naturally. The experiences will be whatever they will be. If we keep clearing the highway to heaven, there can be no doubt that we will arrive in the best shape, and have the everlasting ability to come and go as we please. [Yogani]
http://www.aypsite.com/plus/92.html
And here he talks about the subtle illuminatioon of the world and also talks about the danger of denying siddhis as part of the process of enlightenment:
"Ecstatic conductivity begins within us and radiates outward over time. As it does, it changes our perception of our surroundings. It is a refinement of sensory perception, an introversion occurring in and around us, and this is the progression of pratyahara, an expansion of the senses beyond physical to encompass the subtle celestial (revealing the shine). As it continues, even the shine (the mist of stillness) is transcended and we see we are blissful stillness (our inner silence) interpenetrating everything. The One.
So it is a progression of purification and opening, leading to ever refining grades of perception and experience. It is all one process of unfoldment, with changing scenery along the way. It is essentially the same gig of purification and opening all the way through from start to finish (if there is a finish).
A less-informed definition of pratyahara is "withdrawal from sensory perception," a denial of our sensory gifts, like denying siddhis and all of that -- essentially running away from our inherent capabilities. This is an immature view that has resulted from a long-standing inability to refine natural human capabilities. The truth is that, with sound practices, all of these aspects of our nature gradually refine over time to yield direct experience of the divine radiating within us and everywhere around us. We cannot get there by denying any aspect of our natural neurobiological functioning. Our nervous system is the doorway that joins us with the divine experience, which is our destiny. To walk though, we have to embrace the door and refine it so it may reveal its ultimate capabilities." [Yogani]
From,
http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=2096&whichpage=3#18576
I find the writings of Tao Malachi are very powerful, as he is obviously speaking from a very high place of realization. Even reading a few lines written by him can put someone into an overload state, so be careful and self-pace wisely.
[:)]
Christi
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
As Wayne pointed out, a *huge* part of this issues stems from the mythologizing of enlightenment (over the centuries, and by many modern spiritual teachers, as well) ... people feel like someone they know/know of, can't "be enlightened", because:
A. "Enlightenment isn't like that!"
I think this is the whole issue here really. The truth is, we can't actually know can we? All we can actually say is, for me, right now, it is not like that. Or we could say, for me, right now, it is like that. We can't ever say, enlightenment is never like that, for anyone and anyone who says it is, is just plain mistaken. That is the beginning of attachment to fixed views and when fixed views are being held onto there can tend to be a lot of repetition in discussion, and even swearing. When attachment to fixed views is let go of, then real listening can start to happen.
We can say, "what I am experiencing now is really amazing, and incredible", but we can't say that even that experiencing will not evolve further. This is why I feel that staying open to all possibilities is an important ingredient with spiritual practice (even at the stage of unity consciousness), and is something that simply continues to evolve and become stronger, especially as subtle sensory experience becomes increasingly refined and we begin to get glimpses of our true divine potential.
Christi
-
The realization of no-self is a door to something much more.
-
Hi Christi :)
Thank you again for the information.
It is interesting that Yogani does point out the white light. Thank you Yogani. :)
quote:
I find the writings of Tao Malachi are very powerful, as he is obviously speaking from a very high place of realization. Even reading a few lines written by him can put someone into an overload state, so be careful and self-pace wisely.
[:)]
Christi
This is most mysterious. I have never heard of Tau Malachi so I did a search on Google and found his forum. I found this right away:
quote:
The Gospel of Truth begins: "The proclamation of Truth is joy for those who have received Grace from the Father of Truth, that they might learn to know him through the power of the Word that emanated from the Pleroma of the Father's Thought and Intelligence..."
In Hebrew the word for Truth is Amet. If Aleph is removed from Amet it is Met, which means "death." Thus, Truth connotes Life, and by extension it connotes Light. Thus, the nature of the Truth, which is Logos-Word, is Life and Light. Truth-Amet is a name of Keter, the first Light-emanation on the Tree of Life, and it is called the emanation of Pure Grace. The root of the Word is in Keter-Crown, and it is the revelation of Keter - Divine or Supernal Being.
Thought and Intellect may be translated as Thought and Intelligence, which are names often given to Binah-Undestanding and Hokmah-Wisdom on the Tree of Life, the second and third Light-emanations, respectively. Thus the Pleroma or Fullness from which the Word emanates is the Supernal Abode, and the nature of the Word is Supernal Consciousness (Messianic Consciousness).
Essentially, the Father is Yahweh, the One Life-Power or Eheieh, I am or Divine Being, and the Son is the awakening of the One Life-Power or I am within individuals or creation; the awareness of the Sacred Unity that underlies all things.
The term "awareness of Sacred Unity" can be deceptive for it may imply a state of cosmic consciousness. Yet Supernal Consciousness is completely beyond cosmic consciousness. Cosmic consciousness is the peak ot the mental and vital being, but Supernal Consciousness is Supramental, beyond the mental being and all thought or desire; hence it is Pure Radiant Awareness or Non-dual Gnostic Awareness.
Thus, at the very outset of this Gospel the nature of the Messiah or Christ is clearly stated as Supernal Being-Consciousness-Force.
The nature of this Truth and Light is that of a spiritual nuclear fire - something more than the initial Light that comes from above. It is a Fiery Light that has the power to transform every level of being-consciousness, even the physical or material level of consciousness.
The prologue of the Gospel of Truth continues: "...the Word, who is spoken of as Savior: for that is the term for the work that he was to accomplish to ransom those who had fallen ignorant of the Father; while the term 'proclamation' refers to the manifestation of hope, a discovery for those who are searching for him."
Thus, the Savior is the Transforming Power of Supernal Consciousness-Force, and the nature of the proclamation is the reception of this Superior Light which enlightened and liberates the soul. This perfectly expresses the Gnostic idea of salvation through gnosis, and identifies the Truth Gospel as a Gnostic transmission and Light-transmission, hence the role of Initiation among gnostics.
The statement of the reception of the Supernal Light through the agency of Divine Grace is significant, for we prepare the vessel of reception, namely ourselves, through spiritual practice and the spiritual life. Likewise, receiving the influx of the Supernal Light we integrate it through spiritual practice and the spiritual life and are empowered to extend that Light in the world. Yet, it is not the spiritual practice and life which generates or imparts the True Light, but it is Grace that receives and imparts it - for the Light is a movement of Grace or the Holy Spirit (Mother Spirit). Thus, in essence, the Way of Christ is a "Yoga of Grace" (Union of Grace).
This is the quality of Gnosticism that makes it the perfect vehicle of enlightement for the Western person - for in the midst of a very active life, save through Grace, who would become enlightened and liberated?
This can prove a very powerful contemplation - where does it take your thoughts?
Blessings & shalom!
_________________
Tau Malachi
I bolded the first line that I bolder because it fits into this discussion about enlightenment.
I bolded the second line because when I see the white light breaking out of objects and forms, that is what it feels like: nuclear fire :) That's not to say I've ever experienced a nuclear blast, but the result is that you feel like there is a very potent force burning you and the effect lasts a long time. Now where did I put my sunglasses..:)
And now I understand more about the sleepless nights, for, during the daytime of those sleepless nights, watching the light move inside my body, I recall that my bhakti had been turned up during those days and that I had seen that nuclear light during those days.
Thanks Christi :)
TI
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
Just a small technical point. I don't want people to get the wrong impression and I can't tell if you are joking or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And if I want to refresh myself on clever non-dualism, I will consult Tolle. :) And if I want to stretch my brain I will remember Hegelian dialectics..
quote:
Sounds like a plan; enjoy!
(Jeez; you don't like Tolle, either? [8D])
I love Eckhart Tolle. He is the world's best therapist. If you get a chance, perhaps you could read "A New Earth" (or get the CD's and dump them to mp3). If you like humour and laughing at yourself, you'll love this too.
quote:
What's so unattractive about the plainly-spoken experience of non-duality?
Nothing. Non-duality and the experience of non-duality, being the mental constructs that they are, limited by words and the constricted mind, are forms, have been rendered into forms and that is their limitation. To pretend to understand Non-duality is a function of the ego and the insidious mind working in a concerted effort. (you've probably said that many times yourself).
On a very basic level, it is easy to understand the spectrum of good and bad, or right and left, hence dualism at a basic level, but these are conveniences for the human mind. If one pursues the enigma, one discovers that something can be both good and bad at the same time.
But with regards to my reference to Hegel, this is what had come to mind:
quote:
In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one's living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.[21]
from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
This is an overview of dialectics (sounds kind of like what we were doing.. ) :)
quote:
Dialectics is based around three (or four) basic metaphysical concepts:
1.Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians).
2.Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
3.Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
4.Change moves in spirals (or helixes), not circles. (Sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation")
Within this broad qualification, dialectics has a rich and varied history. It has been stated that the history of dialectic is identical to the extensive history of philosophy.[1]. The basic idea is perhaps already present in Heraclitus of Ephesus, who held that all is in constant change, as a result of inner strife and opposition.[2][3][4] Only fragments of his works and commentary remain, however.
The aim of the dialectical method is resolution of the disagreement through rational discussion,[5][6] and ultimately the search for truth. One way to proceed — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth (see also reductio ad absurdum). Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of both the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis or "sublation". However, the rejection of the participant's presuppositions can be resisted, which might generate a second-order controversy.[7]
So you see, nothing in the world of form exists without contradiction or opposing forces. Dualism (thesis) and Non-Dualism (antithesis) have been synthesized! Hence my assertion that truth has no contradictions..
And again, "What's so unattractive about the plainly-spoken experience of non-duality?". I believe it's called philosophy. :)
Again, thank you for your time.
:)
TI
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This is most mysterious. I have never heard of Tau Malachi so I did a search on Google and found his forum.
Hi TI,
I have just a few minutes right now, but wanted to send you a quick reply, specifically to say two things:
1. I've enjoyed our discussion, too ... and have learned some things as well; thanks!
[:)]
2. It occurred to me that per your deep connection with Jesus, and per your interest in both the miraculous and enlightenment .... that you might resonate very much with the teachings of Tau Malachi ... and I was going to post a link to his forum (which I'll do anyway, for anyone else who may be interested) ... but I see Google & Christi have already beat me to it (which is every bit as good, of course ... I just wanted to be sure you knew of the resource!)
[:)]
Tau Malachi has a background in Gnostic Christian Kabbalah (Kabbalah, as you may know, being the mystical/yogic path of Judaism), the original Kabbalah of Judaism (his path, Sophian Gnosticism ... is Christian Kabbalah.
I outlined it from a yogic/tantric perspective a while back, in a thread called Yogic Christianity (http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=5495), if you're interested.
Also, if you do a search here at the forum on Tau Malachi (primarily with Kirtanman in the member field of the search page, though Christi has mentioned him as well; not sure about anyone else) ... you'll find a bunch of posts from me on Tau Malachi ... and the value on non-dual Sophian Gnosticism/Gnostic Christian Kabbalah in general, and the teachings of Tau Malachi in particular ... and how they relate to enjoying enlightenment & AYP, etc., from my perspective, as well.
I hope this is helpful; thanks again for the very interesting conversation, TI!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
The statement of the reception of the Supernal Light through the agency of Divine Grace is significant, for we prepare the vessel of reception, namely ourselves, through spiritual practice and the spiritual life. Likewise, receiving the influx of the Supernal Light we integrate it through spiritual practice and the spiritual life and are empowered to extend that Light in the world. Yet, it is not the spiritual practice and life which generates or imparts the True Light, but it is Grace that receives and imparts it - for the Light is a movement of Grace or the Holy Spirit (Mother Spirit). Thus, in essence, the Way of Christ is a "Yoga of Grace" (Union of Grace). [Tao Malachi]
Hi TI,
Thanks for posting that quote from Tau Malachi, I didn't know that he had a website.
I think that line sums up a lot about the Christ consciousness stage of enlightenment. After self-realization, which is a shift in identification from the unreal to the real, and is essentially a passive process, there is a dynamic process where the body becomes a vessel and channel for the divine light, force and power. Eventually the body becomes nothing but this divine light, force and power as you will know if you have met Jesus Christ.
quote:
The nature of this Truth and Light is that of a spiritual nuclear fire - something more than the initial Light that comes from above. It is a Fiery Light that has the power to transform every level of being-consciousness, even the physical or material level of consciousness. [Tao Malachi]
The light that Tao Malachi refers to as "the initial light that comes from above", is a spiritual light which comes down through the crown chakra into the heart. It is a very intense and bright white light which is sometimes referred to as the Paramatma light. The Fiery Light that Tao Malachi refers to as being like a nuclear force, is a divine light which emanates from God. Normally we are shielded from this light by divine grace, until we have prepared ourself sufficiently to receive the force of its full power and glory. In my experience this light also radiates from (shines through) the body and spiritual heart of a Christed being and through the Christed one, can more easily reach the soul of a person lost in darkness.
Christi
-
Hi All,
Here's a cool "gorillastration" Wayne Wirs just posted on his blog:
[:)]
Once upon a time a young gorilla left her baby alone for only a moment and a wolf came along and ate her baby. The mother gorilla was terribly heart-broken and filled with remorse.
A few days later, still in mourning, the gorilla came upon a softly glowing orb laying on the forest floor. Plagued with guilt and a strong maternal instinct, she promptly adopted the radiant orb. 24-hours a day she held it tightly in her arms, protecting it from all dangers. She nurtured the orb, and gave it anything that she thought it might desire. Never again would she leave her new baby!
When she saw danger (or even thought about danger), she would hug the orb tightly to her breast and flee into the forest. When she saw another gorilla with something she thought her orb might want, she would howl and scream and slap at the other gorilla until it relinquished it.
Though it was constantly tugged and pulled and jostled about in all directions by the mother gorilla’s actions, the orb continued to glow serenely.
You of course, are the softly glowing orb. An orb in which a giant, 900-pound, deranged, psychotic, and over-protective mother gorilla has adopted.
A gorilla that has you completely enshrouded in her arms–smothering you, blocking your radiant light. All because she cares too much.
Even though you want nothing, she is constantly trying to acquire new and exciting things for you.
Even though you fear nothing, she is constantly trying to protect you from imaginary dangers.
She is smothering you. She is choking off your life force.
See the gorilla. Feel her. Recognize when she is pulling and tugging and jostling you. See her clearly and you’ll soon be free of her.
You are not the gorilla.
You are the orb. You always have been.
Source: http://waynewirs.com/2009/the-ego-gorilla/
-
Hi TI,
Here is an interesting quote from Yogani on the relationship between enlightenmnet and omnipresence:
"In that sense, the purification process is never done, not until we have become purified everywhere, to the furtherest reaches of the cosmos. It is not so difficult, since mind via samyama travels infinitely faster than the speed of light....
The infinite speed (or omnipresence) of mind becomes much more significant and useful as samyama advances. It is what core and cosmic samyama practices are about. Stillness in action and outpouring divine love everywhere ... and that means everywhere. We are That."
http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=1607&whichpage=2#40898
As I understand it the omniscient aspect of enlightenmnet is related to the omnipresent aspect because, after all, if we are everywhere, then we will know, and be, everything. The omnipotent aspect of the enlightenmnet process, I believe, comes through fully surrendering to, and becoming a channel of divine love. This is because ultimately, divine love is the power and force of the principle of creation in the universe and as we surrender more and more to That, we become increasingly, a channel of that divine power.
Christi
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
I was going to ask you. I have this little book called "The Secret Teachings Of Jesus - Four Gnostic Gospels, translated by Marvin W. Meyer. Apparently, two Egyptians found manuscripts in Upper Egypt that have come to known as "Nag Hammadi" library.
Do you think the book is valid and represents authentic sayings by Jesus?
Just curious..
Thanks.
:)
TI
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
As Wayne pointed out, a *huge* part of this issues stems from the mythologizing of enlightenment (over the centuries, and by many modern spiritual teachers, as well) ... people feel like someone they know/know of, can't "be enlightened", because:
A. "Enlightenment isn't like that!"
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I think this is the whole issue here really. The truth is, we can't actually know can we?
Know what?
If there's the experience of enlightenment, or not?
We certainly can and do know the experiencing of what some are comfortable calling enlightenment, in the sense that all the wisdom traditions of the world say that the pinnacle of its teaching (call it enlightenment, liberation, christ-consciousness, buddha-nature, self-realization, god-realization or what have you) has certain characteristics ....
*The cessation of the story-of-me, along with all its artificial, distorted, reactive self-references ... and all the anxiety, anger, fear, lust, greed, ignorance, depression, pushing back, pushing away, attempting to get, attempting to protect, manipulation, attachment, aversion, control, war, pestilence, famine, suffering and so on ..... *all* of which are seen/experienced to have arisen from a conditioned/mistaken concept of self ... a mistaken idea.
*The experience of oneness (not as a concept; the *experience* of oneness/harmony/connectedness .... it *feels* different; ego is kind of like living in an ill-fitting, never-quite-completely comfortable whole-body-mind glove ... enlightenment {yes, I said it ....[8D]} is like being naked and sweetly held/sweetly holding the Beloved/Life itself ... even when being pissed-off (Wayne) or actively barfing (me) ... not in an air-fairy "it's all so bee-yoo-tiful" sense .... but rather, just in a sense of actual union with all, living unbound, the feeling of which is something that mind can't understand ... and even if it could ... it wouldn't be accurate, because *any* knowledge-as-object is removed from actuality .... in the same exact way a dot on a map is not the city it represents ... or the item on the menu is not the food itself.
*Effortless experience of flow/harmony with all, as all is happening now ... the feeling of being "with" all, this moment ... as opposed to paddling against the current, or trying to "get" somewhere.
*The experiencing, as Wayne so clearly put it: "I am what is happening right now" ... or as the Kabbalists say: "The glory of Hashem {God/The Name/Enlightenment/Self} fits like a hand in a glove" .... the utter absence of internal or external conflict ... no matter what is going on, now.
*An effortless sense of outward connection (as opposed to the "what's in it for me"-sense that never quite goes away, while ego-story is still confused with reality) ... the "outpouring of divine love" and the "living for others" that Yogani refers to in the AYP Lessons. And, with all consummate respect to/for Yogani, always ... while "outpouring of divine love" is accurate .... some minds might tend to romanticize that phrasing just a bit (the-error-formerly-known-as-Kirtanman's-mind sure did! [:D] .... not to mention the tendency to compare insanely and inanely (well, there's loving ... but is it *divine*? And is this outpouring, or .... not?).
In experiencing, now, there's no wondering .... about anything ... and it's like a flip switched ... from being the hand reaching for something ... to being the extending hand .... the actual conscious becoming-knowing of that which the me-thought thought it was seeking ... and it all happens in one seamless kinda motion when it finally happens).
*Living for others/the all -- I used to wonder *how* in the world I was going to "live solely for others" .... I was just *way* too selfishly minded (literally) to ever get how *that* was gonna happen. Guess what? It happened .... not in any kind of "I am now so *awesomely holy* {ah-so-hole-y, for short [:D]} conceptual-garbage way ... just in "in the absence of the ego-story, the same connectedness with all, that all life is living, now ... is actually the natural human experiencing, as well .... who knew??" [:)]).
*Peace, which passes all understanding (because if it doesn't it can't be real or inherent; true peace is found in original awareness, prior to the artificial divisions of conditioned-conceptual me-stories).
*Freedom beyond imagination, literally .... when reliance and mis-placed belief in imagination dissolves, probably 95% of all available energy which was frozen in the dream of ego ... is liberated ... and living unbound is the natural state of life, now .... not in a Woo-Hoo way .... just in an actual way. As I've said before: liberation isn't supernatural .... but it is liberation.
*The shift/switch from life being fundamentally about getting, to being fundamentally about giving .... and again: not at *all* in the way mind imagines. It's not about being "saintly" ... it's about being *real* ..... the "me" who wanted whatever it wanted (the "me" *is* "wanting, incarnate") including enlightenment ..... was an error; it's not real ...... and when it's gone, it changes everything ......... including the idea of being a "me" who needs to get/protect in order to fulfill itself/live.
.... and one of the few reasons I "dare" to be "spiritually incorrect" (analogous to politically incorrect) here, is:
All wisdom traditions *do* speak of oneness, peace, unconditional love, presence, awareness .... and several other qualities which represent the goal/purpose of those wisdom traditions ........ as do modern/living teachers, including Adyashanti, Yogani, Tau Malachi .... and quite a few others.
If enlightenment wasn't real ... and if it wasn't utterly life-changing/life-creating .... there wouldn't be the consistency in emphasis, description or experience ... by all who experience the benefits of the cessation of the error of limited-self in actuality, now.
There may not be an *exact* place where the line can be drawn (enlightenment is more about the erasing of lines, than the drawing of them, anyway) .... but there's absolutely an experiential shifting of the fundamental experiencing of life ..... that anyone who's every experienced it fully, even for a moment .... would/will/does ... literally and gladly give their life, in order to have-share-be.
I (and Wayne, and Yogani, and whoever else) .... quite literally cannot refrain from expressing this; it's part of the deal .... it just happens; if there's ever been someone who somehow "claims" enlightenment .... and then doesn't speak of it, out of fear (of offending people; of stepping on someone's concepts, etc.) .... that's not enlightenment ..... because only the me-story would feel the need to do such a thing, in the first place.
Truth is truth; we're all it ...... and the part of All that knows itself, naturally expresses this to the part of All that may not be consciously experiencing this yet .... that it may be consciously experienced by all.
The nature of anything can be known by what it creates.
How do you know if it's a dog? Easy: does it have the capacity and the inclination to make dogs? (This an analogy, now; neutering is not part of the discussion ..... [8D])
How do you know if it's a me-story? Easy .... does it have the capacity and the inclination to make me-stories? (More commonly known as "people", "human beings", etc.)
Even emotions or energies do it .... laughter tends to create laughter; sexual arousal tends to create sexual arousal; kindness tends to create kindness ....
.... and enlightenment is capable of, and inherently inclined to .... create enlightenment .... to wake up ..... to invite ... the parts of itself (within all) that is not consciously enlightened (aware of its own true nature, free from suffering, etc.) .... and never in a "teachy-preachy" way (which is always ego-based) ... and never in an attached way; solely in a "this is what happens", way.
[:)]
We're literally talking about the end of all suffering in a given human life, here, for real .... helping and inviting others to experience this ... even if one other person who ever reads these words experiences enlightenment because of these words .... is more than worth a little conceptually-generated discomfort, if any ego has any, don't you agree?
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
We can't ever say, enlightenment is never like that, for anyone and anyone who says it is, is just plain mistaken. That is the beginning of attachment to fixed views and when fixed views are being held onto there can tend to be a lot of repetition in discussion, and even swearing.
Um ... "Oh, My!!"
[:D]
I'm not to sure what to say, here .... because I'm not quite sure exactly what you're saying, other than to guess that the statement of yours, quoted above, is a commentary on on our dialog, and or my dialog with TI (repetition in discussion) and/or Wayne's comments (swearing) ... {?}, in this thread .... along with the intimation that "fixed views" have been part of the overall dialog (with this, I agree ....[:)])
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
When attachment to fixed views is let go of, then real listening can start to happen.
Hey ... I agree some more!!
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
We can say, "what I am experiencing now is really amazing, and incredible", but we can't say that even that experiencing will not evolve further.
Well, of course .... that would be, well .... silly, to say the least; not to mention unenlightened.
How can I say that?
Because one "symptom" of enlightenment is non-interest in fixed views, and non-attachment to fixed views ...... literally; if enlightenment has any single, identifying factor, it would be: no attachment to conceptual views or opinions ... and inversely, unenlightenment, if it were to be said to have a single identifying factor, would be "attachment to conceptual views or opinions, including sense of self, on some level of consciousness" (i.e. we've all seen people who seem to be enlightened ... or, at least "spiritually mature" ... but then something that is an effect of the conceptual error of unenlightenment {lust, greed, anger, etc.} gets triggered, based on something still resident in the body-mind, somewhere ... even in unconscious/subconscious memory ... and there's {scandal/meltdown/ashram much more fun than it used to be/whatever ....[8D]}.
And, very seriously -- your comment, and my response speak to a very fundamental point concerning the nature of enlightenment, so I'll see if I can clarify, once and for all:
One of the hallmarks of enlightenment is experiencing the true nature of the self; it's not known as an object; it's wholeness of experiencing ("I am what is happening right now", as Wayne wrote).
Mind can't get what "knowing true nature" really means; it's not like "Ah HA! I am the Great One Self of the Universe, and I thought I was a mere mortal!! Bwahhahahaha!!" .... it's much more like: "Oh My God ..... I thought I was actually limited to and by all those inconsistent yet uncomfortable thoughts about myself!! I felt like I was actually the sum total of all those *ideas* .... I thought and felt that all that positionality and self-reference was real and true, in some sense: "How does this affect *ME*? How does this affect MY Comfort ... MY Happiness ... My Cherished Beliefs & Opinions Which Are Right and True and Me??"
I literally dreamed that somehow all those thought-dream reactions were *real* .... that it had something to do with what I actually am.
And so, enlightenment isn't the knowing what I actually am *instead* of that crazy dream of partiality; it's the unknowing of that crazy dream ... period. When the dream is released, and actual waking up happens ... I am just who I actually am ..... which is much more the awareness than the form, yet somehow both, yet somehow neither .... (who knows, who cares?) ... and it doesn't matter ...... I am actually what is happening this moment; it's always, ever this way .... awareness experiencing this moment ... yet there's a difference ...... or, rather .... a non-difference:
Before enlightenment, there was an artificial layer of concepts, occluding actuality ... and creating suffering/discomfort .... the inability to ever feel whole, now.
That artificial layer dissolved a few weeks back .... and, as Adyashanti says "it's like a tiny little step to the side ..... but it changes everything."
Where there was anxiety, there is peace.
Where there was fear, there is peace.
Where there was depression, there is peace.
Where there was ecstasy, there is peace.
Where there was hope, there is peace.
Where there was ping-ponging between the memory-ideas of the past, and imagination-ideas of the future, there is peace-as-presence, now.
Where there was conceptual separation, there is actual union.
Where there was fear of death (on one level or another), there is loving living unbound now.
And that underlying sense of "not ever fully right; not ever fully satisfying" ... for more than a handful of moments .... is .... gone ..... and instead of that ... there is peace.
It's not so much a "knowing I'm enlightened" as it is "feeling enlightenment".
Have you (anyone reading) ever had the thought:
"Life has GOT to be BETTER than this!!"
I lived from that single thought for decades; the sheer (conceptual, it turns out ... [:)]) *wrongness* of it all *had* to be wrong ...... and I tried *everything* in order to try to find out: sex, drugs, rock n roll; conservative political and religious lifestyles; hedonistic lifestyles; making money; having prestigious social positions ..... and you know what I found out?
NOBODY (outside of enlightenment) is truly, completely happy/at peace.
If you think money/power/love/sex/fame/status/whatever ...... will fill the aching void .... it won't (and I know many of you know this, of course).
My point is:
When I got a whiff of enlightenment being something *actual* .... that somehow, humanity *does* live in a dream, an illusion .... and that there is a reality, the experiencing of which, gives us all the things that feel like they should be part of life (loving, wholeness, happiness, peace, unity, etc.) .... and that I could somehow have it ........ it was Game Over; enlightenment was the only thing that mattered to me, as of maybe seven or so years ago.
I had a few false starts; a few cul-de-sacs and wrong turns (all stemming from, now that I look back on it ... from not even knowing that the "dream of the conceptual me" was the core issue/error preventing enlightenment) ... but once I found and practiced AYP ... the gains were steady and consistent .... the sense of opening to actual enlightenment/moving in an ever more conscious direction ... was simply true.
There were "dead spots"; there was impatience; there was over-the-top ecstasy and many, many tears of gratitude ... and a few of terror ... and a few of grief'; there were several points of: "Oh ... this awareness; this ... this is enlightenment" .... and I was wrong ... as evidenced by experiential discomfort returning, before long, no matter how lofty the attainment felt, or how clear the realization seemed to be.
There was an ever greater opening into loving, into clarity ... and into an ever-deepening sense that awareness and loving are part of the same movement of this that I somehow am ..... yet there still seemed to be something to "get" ... it's like Adya says: "I was ready to plant my flag, but this little voice said: not yet; this isn't it ...." .... and he identifies this sense, which came up repeatedly (as it did for me) as one of the most valuable things on his entire spiritual journey.
Finally, in the last year or so .... I got into kind of an easy-yet-consistent rhythm .... I was in this for the long haul, for real, for life .... no matter what; enlightenment wasn't the most important thing in life .... it was the only important thing (if I'm not living in reality; if freedom-from-all-suffering is available, and I'm not experiencing it ...... what matters, until I do?) .... yet, it began to be lived in a much more patient "if it takes some years, that's okay .... I am going to get there".
(Understanding that "getting there" is more a release, an unclutching .... a melting ... rather than an actual "going somewhere".)
And so, impatience dissolved, awareness increased ... and commitment was total.
And, a few weeks back:
It actually happened.
As I've said in another thread: it's like all the sand ran out of the hourglass.
And the result is: everything I read, hear or see, of what any enlightened teacher, be it Yogani, Adyashanti, Tau Malachi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Eckhart Tolle, Paramahamsa Nithyananda or Ramana Maharshi ... or Daniel Odier, or Abhinavagupta, or Swami Lakshmanjoo ..... says of enlightenment .... now *feels* like what I'm experiencing.
The dissolving of that fundamental error .... forced and reinforced throughout every moment of my life ... into-as every little iota of mind, memory, imagination, intellect and ego .......... revealed this that every wisdom tradition speaks of:
*A peace far beyond what my mind ever could have conceived, in every moment.
*A genuine sense of connection with, and intending only the best for all ... *naturally* ... *effortlessly* ... without any remnants of the ego-idea ... it's simply what is here; simply how awareness is moving, now.
*No fear ... at all; it's almost like I can't exactly remember fear .... what could it have come from? What did it feel like? I can't really remember.
*No conflict; with anyone ... on any level; not in actions or relationships; not in thoughts or feelings ..... just ... harmony .... moving with actuality; not against it, in anyway.
*Loving ... genuine loving; that which is truly, naturally helpful ... is what is naturally here ..... and candidly, it may be that others are naturally less selfish than "ego here".... but prior to a few weeks back, while it was "largely like that" ..... it was a long way from ever being *completely* like that ... by a long shot; I still very much wanted what *I* wanted .... even though that wanting was often in harmony with higher principles; I still often felt like an "I" who wanted .... even if it was wanting enlightenment.
There's no wanting, now; zero; I have this moment -- I *am* this moment; what could wanting be about??
There's no more "being present" .... I am presence; "before now" and "not now yet" are states of mind that don't hold much interest ... and which are experienced as what they actually are: states of mind, now.
My friends .............. my Self ........... open your hearts, please and just allow listening, in the privacy of wherever you're reading this:
My only purpose in telling you all this is so that you can experience it, too.
Life free from suffering is available to you.
Living every moment free from anxiety and free from fear ... and happily, calmly and abundantly radiating loving, peace, goodwill and simple happiness every single moment .... is available to you .... sooner than you think .... sooner than you can think.
And so much more completely ....
And so much more actually ....
... than you can imagine.
Enlightenment is real.
Enlightenment is all that's real.
And you can have it.
That is all.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
This is why I feel that staying open to all possibilities is an important ingredient with spiritual practice (even at the stage of unity consciousness), and is something that simply continues to evolve and become stronger, especially as subtle sensory experience becomes increasingly refined and we begin to get glimpses of our true divine potential.
Christi
I fully agree, Christi; and I'm guessing that almost anyone else who is experiencing enlightenment, or something of it, does, too ..... not that it matters.
The reason communication about enlightenment ... especially between those who may be experiencing what some would call "enlightenment" (as described above), and those who are conceiving of enlightenment (and I'm not sure what your experiencing is, with respect to enlightenment ... you haven't said ... and I respect that ... [:)]) .... is often difficult, is:
The experiencing of it is so very different than all the concepts and pointers ... not because very intelligent and in many cases, enlightened people .... haven't done their very best to communicate enlightenment well ....but it's much like communicating the experience of swimming in the ocean ... or having sex ... or doing acid ..... to someone who has never done those things ... not even necessarily at the same time (I tried; I swallowed too much salt water, and gave up ....... [:D]).
There's just no frame of reference ... really.
Pertinent example:
Wayne may have sounded "closed" to the idea of "further development" ... but I can tell you: that isn't it, at all (and I'm not "speaking for Wayne", here ... I'm speaking from the experiencing of what {Wayne and I, Yogani, Adyashanti, etc. *generally* refer to as "enlightenment" ... and I get how it works) .... when ego-story drops, there's not enough conceptual energy available *to* relate to the conceptual .... at *all* .... in terms of attachment *or* aversion to *any* fixed view ... of any kind; that's what's been seen through.
It's like: after puberty, the dynamics of prepubescent physiology simply don't apply any longer.
And so, if I was referring to another adult, physically ... I could say that he or she has pubic hair, that he or she has a monthly period, or gets erections, or whatever (presuming there was no reason to think anything abnormal existed; as in: this is the *normal* physiological condition of physically mature adults, of each respective gender).
And the same is true of enlightenment: inability to project attachment to the conceptual is fundamental to enlightenment ... regardless of what the "conceptual attachment" would be about.
And so, when Wayne said: "I can't walk on water", etc. etc. ..... he wasn't saying "And so, I'm closed to the possibility of further opening or development in any way" ..... those two things simply aren't connected.
I'm not sure I could even define "true divine potential" .... other than to say:
The knowing true nature which is the *absence* of untrue nature, not replaced by anything else .... and therefore, the natural state of conscious awareness .... is completion, experientially.
To experience enlightenment as completion is not to be "closed off" to (quote unquote) "further development" ...... yet neither is it to artificially generate any energy for imagination "further development".
It's more that "life knows what it's doing" .... and it doesn't need my ideas of what's real or unreal to "help it along".
Yet, I agree completely that further opening/experiencing/unfolding/expanding .... whatever it might be termed ... is both obvious, and experienced, now.
It's more like: the dream that was the ice of ego-story that was blocking the free flow of the river of living awareness now is finally melted ... is finally simply the river again now ... and is flowing freely ... knowing-being the flowing now ... utterly unconcerned with where it has been ... or where it is flowing; being the flowing now is complete; it's what the river is ever actually here for, now.
And so: experiencing being the river .... is real, permanent and complete; knowing that flowing ("further development") is what's happening is an inherent part of being the river, now; the two (knowing self, releasing anything fixed or static as artificial and untrue) are actually one river ... there's no either/or ... just this living loving river now ... which beats the heck outta the frozen dream of partiality.
And, of course, while enlightenment is most certainly real ...... *I* am most certainly *not* .... and therefore any .... issues than any create any sense of conceptual discomfort for anyone reading .... can be easily released.
[:)]
Conceptually .... it could possibly seem quite ridiculous for "Kirtanman to say he's enlightened" ...... but please know:
It would not only be ever bit as ridiculous ..... it would be impossible .... for Kirtanman not to happily tell you of the experiencing that some might call "enlightenment".
Do I (quote-unquote) care if I'm enlightened ... or if you (whoever is reading) thinks I'm enlightened?
Not at all; I'm literally chuckling as I type these words; it's not about that ... it never has been; not for a minute.
There's experiencing here that is utterly amazing ..... as described above; if anyone doubts it's real ..... doubt no longer.
Yogani is just a "regular person" ... and so is Adyashanti; so's Tau Malachi .... but for most people here, they're teachers ... they're at the place we've been trying to "get to" .... and for some, there may not be an inherent sense of "Hey, if they can do it, I can do it, too!!"
Whereas, with *me* on the other hand ..... I'm hoping/guessing that it may not seem quite the same ... I'm "one of us" .... and I walked in off the (virtual) street, about three years ago .... and I'm experiencing the (general) "full fruits" of every spiritual system.
And, by the way: I've gotten the impression that some might feel that if I intimate the enlightenment is experienced here, that I'm somehow "above or beyond" this group ..... and nothing could be farther from the truth; I've gone from being "one of us" .... to being "one of us", completely; no conceptual blocks to occlude the actuality of the the connection, here.
When you see the statement "enlightenment is dropping the story of me, the story called ego" .... what that actually means is: "enlightenment is dropping the story of me, the story called ego"; it doesn't mean one automatically thinks they're a teacher or a guru, or becomes one; it doesn't mean one is "above" anyone else (in their own mind, or in relation to others) ... it doesn't *mean* anything ..... it's just what happens .... the story of me finally dissolves ..... and living every moment in a condition that is more fulfilled, more peace-filled, more loving, more enjoyable and more wonderful than mind can imagine .... even when actively barfing .... [8D] ..... which replaces the always-at-least-a-little-unpleasant on some level (even if it's the fear that the awesomeness of a wonderful moment will be lost, somehow) dream of the me-story.
And it's not "choirs of angels" wonderful; it's the utter relief of experiencing ..... experiencing ....... that all that suffering was actually illusion; actually a dream .... and that simple, actually, suffering-free living, full of simple peace, goodwill, acceptance and happiness .... is what we're really here to live, now.
Really.
None of us were born to suffer or feel incomplete ........ that's the dream; enlightenment is natural ..... enlightenment is real ..... enlightenment is who we each and all actually are, now .... behind the dream of partiality-mind.
It's one thing to imagine the peace I describe ..... and to imagine the ability to perform amazing siddhi/miracles, or whatever .... there was a time here when the latter was more interesting, for sure.
But it's quite another to experience it.
Maybe miraculous siddhis are real .... there are so many stories, after all (that some would say "they must be real", and some, such as myself, have said "but it's interesting that hardly anyone has *experienced* them" -- though now, there's not even that evaluation; they're just not interesting, nothing not-now, is, really) ....... but I'm telling you, in-from experiencing:
The peace, the freedom, the end of suffering, the end of the dream of being a partial-separate "me-story", the beginning of living unbound .... is real ... and is as available to you as it was/is to me .... we're all "it" ... all we have to do is "leggo the ego" .... with some likely help from practices/persistence.
There's no one here who is not born to be enlightened.
I'd bet my life on it.
In fact, I did.
How'd that work out for me?
"See above."
And once again: it doesn't matter how it worked out for me ....... I'm just sharing my experiencing, to help you know how it can work out for you, really.
And, my friends ...... I've known millionaires; I've hung out with the rich and the famous; I've had the titles, and the fat paychecks, and the wild weekends .... in short ... nearly every experience a human being can have, and so I'm confident when I say:
If you could experience even ten seconds of what I'm actually referring to ... understanding that it can be the regular, ongoing experience of all day, every day ... and it just keeps getting better and better and better ..... not in an "over the top way" ..... just in a way that's true, real, actual and simply wonderful ....... ten seconds ....... and you were told all you had to do was live a thousand difficult lifetimes to have it .... you wouldn't even blink ... you'd jump at the chance .... and you'd call it a bargain ..... the best you ever had.
I don't mind telling you all:
I have tears streaming down my cheeks right now, and a smile of happy, genuine loving confidence on my face ... and loving unbound gently shining from my heart, in love and respect for you all.
Enlightenment is real.
Enlightenment can be real in your experiencing.
And when you get here ... you'll invite people, too.
How good is it, really?
If I was offered all the money, fame, power, sex, prestige and everything else in exchange, I'd literally laugh; this simple, peaceful loving oneness can't be for sale at any price .... reality isn't a "thing" .... it's what's actually here.
Which is the last thing I'll say, now:
There's no "thing" called enlightenment; what we're calling enlightenment is the natural state that's always already here .... and once the artificial, unnatural dream-state is released ..... it's what is already here; humanity is glorious; living is glorious; the power of the occluding idea-called-me is that powerful ... and that unreal.
And, very truthfully:
I could care less if I've convinced anyone that "I'm enlightened" ... or even that "enlightenment is real" ..... concepts don't matter; not any of them.
But ..... could I be even a little bit right ......... that what I describe above can be your experiencing, too?
And .... do you feel like it might ... just possibly .... be worth finding out?
If so ..... then I'm truly grateful for the opportunity to share this experiencing; all of this, with all of you.
[:)]
_/\\_
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Kirtanman :)
I was going to ask you. I have this little book called "The Secret Teachings Of Jesus - Four Gnostic Gospels, translated by Marvin W. Meyer. Apparently, two Egyptians found manuscripts in Upper Egypt that have come to known as "Nag Hammadi" library.
Do you think the book is valid and represents authentic sayings by Jesus?
Just curious..
Thanks.
:)
TI
Hi TI,
I don't know much about those specific translations, or about that translator (sounds like he was the original one translator?) .... but the Nag Hammadi manuscripts are absolutely valid, in every sense of the term.
I don't know if you've read through the Yogic Christianity thread I started yet, but I gave a bit of the history of the gnostic gospels, there.
Basically, there was a conservative movement in early Christianity, which felt a very vested interest in making sure that any enlightenment-oriented teachings of/by Jesus and/or his disciples .... did not make it into their single "authorized book" (aka the Bible) ... which culminated with the Council of Nicea, where the 27 current books of the New Testament were selected and voted into the canon.
There have literally been *centuries* of propaganda handed down that the gnostic gospels are not valid or credible or "of God", or whatever ..... which has *zero* basis in any kind of credibility, again, on any level, as I'll explain:
1. Historical
All historians, including Christian historians, from conservative Christian institutions, acknowledge the historical accuracy and veracity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Library; there's too much factual detail to discount it. They do a pretty major dance to highlight why they feel these gospels are not "doctrinally valid", or whatever ... but no one at a professional/academic level denies that they're authentic.
2. Linguistic
"Ditto". The gnostic gospels are valid, linguistically ... and accepted as such, by academia ... all around the world.
3. Consistency/Volume
This is a bit of personal view here, but it feels reasonable: there's a thread of consistency through the mystical/yogic (experiential/non-dual) schools of the world's wisdom traditions .... including Gnostic Christianity ... Kabbalah ... Western Mysticism ... Hindu Tantra ... Buddhist Tantra ... and so on.
They all sound amazingly consistent with each other (with allowances or symbolism and language, of course) ... and teach the same thing, essentially.
*And* there are at least ten major gnostic gospels for every book of the New Testament ... so these (gnostic/mystic) teachings were by *far* the prevalent Christian teaching in the early church .... the exoteric/power-oriented factions just made a major power-play ... and they won, propagandically-speaking.
The *best* source I've seen for easy/thorough/solid/insightful clarity on these gospels is the Sophian Gnosticism forum ..... which I said I'd post a link to, and forgot .... and so ..."good segue".
http://www.sophian.org/forum/
Their forum sections for:
The Gospel of St. Thomas
The Gospel of St. Phillip
The Gospel of Truth
The Pistis Sophia (from which Ecclesia Pistis Sophia, Tau Malachi's church, takes its name)
The Secret Gospel of Mary (I love this one; utter wisdom from Jesus' partner/co-guru, and some say, spouse, Miriam {Mary Magdalene}).
And ... if you read interesting things there, and have any questions ... Tau Malachi directly answers questions there, all the time (he's very accessible) ... and I don't know of a more authoritative living source, regarding the gnostic gospels, and their deepest meanings, than Tau Malachi).
I've gotta run for now; I hope this is helpful.
Enjoy!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Christi :)
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=1607&whichpage=2#40898
As I understand it the omniscient aspect of enlightenmnet is related to the omnipresent aspect because, after all, if we are everywhere, then we will know, and be, everything.
Yes. Precisely. All at the same time. If you could do that why would you desire or want anything? You already have everything, every experience imaginable, for all time and space. And your little self would seem so insignificant! To me, this is a proper definition.
quote:
The omnipotent aspect of the enlightenmnet process, I believe, comes through fully surrendering to, and becoming a channel of divine love. This is because ultimately, divine love is the power and force of the principle of creation in the universe and as we surrender more and more to That, we become increasingly, a channel of that divine power.
Christi
Yes. Again, I agree wholeheartedly. Hence, stand aside and let God perform the miracles through your open gateway of the heart.
That link is certainly an interesting discussion.
Just for another perspective, here is a paragraph about the illusory body, which kind of falls into my definition of enlightenment/self-realization/really making it:
This is from "Clear Light Of Bliss" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso:
quote:
As for the benefits of attaining the illusory body, these are also enumerated in Guhyasamaja Tantra as well as in the Five Stages of Completion Stage and Condensed Deeds. In these texts, it is said that the illusory body is adorned with the thirty-two major signs and the eighty minor indications; is an object of offering for all humans and gods; can obtain wealth and possessions effortlessly; is free from poverty, sickness, old age, death, rebirth, and all the sufferings of samsara; and can manifest various forms to benefit others. The greatest benefit is that a person who has attained the illusory body will definately attain Buddhahood within that same life.
I believe unity consciousness or Oneness is not enlightenment, it is just a small aspect of it all. It is definately a step in the right direction, however, it does not produce any of the more esoteric trappings of truly realized beings as described and written about throughout the ages in many spiritual and Buddhist texts. Even Buddha performed miracles and he even describes how to attain those powers in the Pali (like Patanjali does). Again, you shouldn't seek the powers, but then once you do wake up and realize you are God living in a cartoon world, as long as you don't wake up everyone else because that would truly mean the end of the world, why not have some fun?
I guess I have a predisposition to miracles because, I took part in one on the night after which I met Jesus. I didn't believe it at the time, but now I'm starting to think perhaps it was true.
I wrote this with the intention of posting it in response to a post by Ananda (which I ended up not posting due to unforseen circumstances):
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ananda:
we have a story here in Lebanon about a famous and very beautiful and loving Christian Saint who is still doing miracles after he's been long past gone (his name is Saint Charbel); anyways the story goes that Saint Charbel asked God at one point to let him go out from his hermitage and help others and God's reply to him was pray all is asked of you is to pray this is the best way you can help with for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this Ananda! Reading about Saint Charbel and his miracles reminded me of when I took part in a miracle. It was after the time when I met Jesus (couldn't move for 40 minutes on the church bench and Jesus told me that I was saved. I've written about it in other posts).
Afterwards, the group of us went to downtown Edmonton ( I was being initiated into what Christians do on Wednesday nights).
We entered this small white house, which was a meet-up house and walked into the living room. On my way into the house from the back porch, there was a guy sitting on the freezer. I had said "Hi" to him but he did not acknowledge me. I barely noticed, but I did notice that.
In the living room, there was a chair in the center. My friend told me that we were going to perform a healing. The guy who was sitting on the freezer on the back porch was led into the room. He sat on the chair. He appeared to be in rough shape.
Then, this other woman introduced him as "Fred" and said that he was deaf and dumb. It had been 6 years since he could not hear or speak. Apparently he had lost his hearing and ability to speak in an industrial accident.
Everyone starting praying for Fred and put their hands on him. I felt compelled to do the same, peer pressure, so I did too. Well, after about 20 minutes, all of a sudden Fred starts smiling, someone calls out Fred's name and he turned to look at them!
Then Fred starting talking! He told us his life's story up to that day, how he had lost his job, couldn't find work, was homeless etc.. Everyone was overjoyed that Fred could hear and speak. He was healed. They went crazy and danced around. Fred was ecstatic.. he cried a lot. There was lot of "Praise Jesus" and laughter and joy going around.
A part of me was very impressed, but another part of me did not believe it. I still think the whole night was staged just to try to influence me, but then again perhaps lately I'm starting to believe it.
You know, it's very funny but I've never thought of myself as being religious. The only real fun that I had from my Catholic upbringing as a child was when I used to bounce my legs while sitting on those hard wooden benches at church. Then, after church, I'd run home through the church grounds with a kind of skipping motion that felt kind of like I was flying. I swear, I used to be able to just glide along the ground for 10 or more feet before having to take another step. Perhaps that is why I like Kunlun so much.. ?
:)
TI
-
I really wish Kirtanman would sum it up in few words.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
...
but the Nag Hammadi manuscripts are absolutely valid, in every sense of the term.
Hi Kirtanman :)
Thank you so much for this. I appreciate it.
Here is a quote from that book:
quote:
Saying 50
Jesus said, "If some say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light,
where the light came into being by itself,
established itself,
and appeared in an image of light'
"If they say to you, 'Are you the light?', say,
'We are its children,
and we are the chosen of the living Father,'
"If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' tell them,
'It is motion and rest.'"
I do have one concern with one of your statements from a different post, this one, where you say:
quote:
Maybe miraculous siddhis are real .... there are so many stories, after all (that some would say "they must be real", and some, such as myself, have said "but it's interesting that hardly anyone has *experienced* them" -- though now, there's not even that evaluation; they're just not interesting, nothing not-now, is, really)
Ok, you're causing me to big out my big gun now. I didn't want to bring it out because I'm concerned that everyone would think I was lulu for sure. They probably do by now anyway, so no loss there.. :) But here goes...
This happened about a year ago. I used to coordinate my work breaks with a smoking buddy of mine at work. She was 19 yrs old and we would spend our breaks smoking out by the road. We enjoyed each other's company and I grew to know her quite well. She would talk about anything and everything, including the fact that she had had cancer a few years previous. She was terrified that the cancer would return. She had to go for tests every year and, at that time, had gone and was waiting for results.
One day, we went for a smoke break and she was devastated. She couldn't stop welling up with big tears. She was a real mess. Turned out she had gotten her results back from the test and it wasn't good. The cancer had returned and she was scheduled for aggressive treatments.
That night, I went home and prayed to Jesus for her. I prayed for over an hour.
The next day, I went to work, and we went for a break again. When I saw her, she behaved absolutely normally, like there was nothing wrong. There was no sign of stress or any distraught emotion. I asked her about the cancer test and she said that the results were negative! Like the previous day hadn't happened!
I was amazed, dumbfounded, perplexed, you name it!
It was like Jesus had gone back and changed the past. I contemplated the whole thing. My mind was reeling. The whole experience did have the same kind of flavour as being in a dream. It felt the same as when I went up to heaven a few times during deeply mystic meditations. I could see 'yesterday' as a whirling cloud that looked like a spiral being taken away. It had been taken away and replaced with another version of reality. That's what Jesus can do!
This experience is all just too hard for me to believe, but I know I should believe it. It felt like the previous day had been a dream, exactly how life had felt when I was up in heaven. Deep silence, peace, joy, love, realization of eternal truth and wisdom and a feeling like life was but a dream.
I know this is a miracle and I've never told anybody else about it. It is very hard to tell someone about a miracle when there is the chance that they will not believe you. Unit 23 (the psych ward) isn't so far away from where I work.. :)
So, either I'm crazy, or miracles do happen and it's all true. Now ask me again why I'm very interested in siddhis and miracles..
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
Yes miracles do happen. Life itself is a miracle. Waking up every morning and reaching work and getting home safe is a miracle. A complex child being formed from the union of two little cells is a miracle. A plant sprouting from a seed and becoming a huge tree is a miracle.
But yes, you are talking about things that happen that are not within the definition of what the mind defines as ordinary.
(If someone from a remote village in Africa ever came to NY city, they would definitely think walking on the streets of NY city and making it home alive is a miracle.[:D] [:o)])
It is the power of prayer TI. Yogani had once told me, "We will find what we are seeking. If we seek enlightenment (abiding inner silence), we will find it. If we seek aliens, siddhis, God, we will find them (or they will find us). It is the pro-con siddhis discussion happening in different shades". When we believe in Jesus we can make Jesus manifest, if we believe in life outside of the forms we know, we can make aliens manifest, when we believe in miracles (siddhis) we can make miracles manifest. But this believing is at a level beyond the mind. That is why the mind labels them as miracles, because it cannot comprehend how this can happen.
Almost everyone can (and have at some point in their lives, even if they don't realize it) make things manifest. But it is a hit or miss in most cases. Some figure out a way to go beyond the mind and ask, and can have their prayers answered most times... some get a glimpse of it and make it happen a few times but don't really know how they did it (when I was a kid I remember feeling defeated and scared and crying and praying to god for something and it happened... I was so shocked.. so I thought maybe the trick was to cry and beg to god... and tried it many times after that, but it never worked.. reason, I was expecting an outcome like that one time, I did not realize the trick was in letting go).
A person who is enlightened, one who has gone beyond the clutches of the mind, can actually make anything they really want, manifest. And it is not hit or miss any more. It depends on the interest of the person. Some people who are enlightened become silent and go to some remote place and meditate, some become teachers, some healers, some of them sing songs, some become poets and artists, some of them are into service. They then have miracles manifest in and around them, but they will not claim it... only the mind can claim something.. only the mind can define an I and a me and mine... the enlightened would say... "it wasn't me, I am not doing anything, things just happen".
The reason, siddhis are a hindrance before enlightenment is because they are so amazing, that the mind wants to hold onto it. Anything that will keep the mind in place will take away from enlightenment. After enlightenment, the interest in siddhis are not there. Only the mind can be dazzled by miracles. When you are beyond the mind everything is a miracle (even the ordinary) or nothing is a miracle.
Our limited minds see these happenings as miracles and are in awe of it. But when an enlightened soul manifests these, they are never impressed by it, because they know it is not "they" (this body mind) who are making things happen. If these are manifested by unenlightened souls though, they will be so impressed by this, s/he will then focus more energy into getting better at this siddhi and hence moving further away from our true nature.. our oneness with everything.
You have a blessing of being able to communicate with Jesus. This blessing is beyond your mind. You are surprised when you make things manifest (the lady above got healed)... why? You have the blessing of being one with Jesus. Accept this and continue on your path. Drop the mind layers that wants to figure out how this was possible or how it can make these sidhhis more reproducible. Just find your true nature and the rest of the miracles will just flow. [:)]
You truly are blessed TI . Let Jesus flow through you and not try to control how Jesus flows through you.
You are such a loving soul.
Thank you. _/\\__/\\_
-
(I know I often come across as direct, I don't mean to insult anyone's ego, but I'm not here to stroke their egos either. My "flavor" is to cut through the noise and highlight the crux of the problem - Wayne)
Ironically, on my blog, I often talk of the "Light." I call it the Divine Within, the Life Force, the Radiant Light, the Divine Flame. These terms help the readers grasp the FEEL of the "no-self" experience--what it FEELS like to live without a self. This is the artist in me, to EVOKE a feeling.
The Light, the Divine Within, is not what I mean by a miracle.
What I mean by a miracle is "I helped a smoker cure her cancer by praying." "I walked on water." "I can teleport into someone's house and answer any question they might have." "I helped heal a deaf and dumb man." "My personal story is special and it is far greater than you mere mortals' stories and my personal story is so much more awesome than yours."
Because, PRIOR TO DROPPING YOUR STORY, if you either performed the miracle, participated in it, or WANT to be able to perform miracles, all you are doing is ADDING to your STORY.
You are STRENGTHENING the EXACT THING that is BLOCKING you from waking up.
You are HINDERING your awakening.
So here is my prediction and I am completely serious here: Spend the next twenty years (or however long you decide), focusing on WANTING to perform miracles and after those twenty years are up (mark it in your calendar), come back to this entry and see if my prediction is correct. My prediction is: You won't have woken up yet.
All the great teachings say the same thing. You wake up by FEELING who you truly are (ie: Out-flowing Love, Christ consciousness, the Radiant Light) and then DROPPING everything that is BLOCKING that FEELING.
Understanding is important, but FEELING it (practice, practice, practice) is what is so often overlooked these days.
There are hundreds of teachings that tell you how (and provide practices) to drop the personal story (that which is blocking your "Light"), but in essence, they are all working toward the same goal: dropping the personal story.
Peace to each of you. I hope this helps.
PS: TI, I know it sounds like I'm jumping on you (or your personal story), and I am, but it is because, from some of your remarks, you sound like you are close to awakening--but your attachment to the miraculous is actually what is blocking you from waking up (for all the reasons stated above). The miraculous happens because there is LESS of you standing in the way of the Divine, but if you hang onto those miracles, then you create MORE of you (the story), and thus BLOCK the Divine from flowing through. Just let it flow, bud. Let the story go, surrender, and let the Light flow through.
-
One can take the five poisons as the path, boil five down to three or three down to one. The one poison is a self. The radiant clear light is obscured by that. There are no two thoughts.
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I really wish Kirtanman would sum it up in few words.
Hi Adamantclearlight,
Welcome to the AYP Forum!
Which part would you like me to sum up?
My own experiencing? What I'm saying about the nature of enlightenment?
Or you'd just like to see shorter posts?
[8D]
Any answer is fine ... I'm just not sure if you're actually asking for a summary ... or simply commenting that you feel my posts are too long.
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I really wish Kirtanman would sum it up in few words.
Ah, got it ... you're saying miracles *are* real!!
[:D]
And: Hey, Konchok (sorry, I didn't recognize you in non-Tibetan garb ... [:)]) ... I like your new site ... good, clear vibe to it.
And ... I'll "humbly accept your challenge" (to sum it up in a few words).
I started this thread because I felt some AYPers might enjoy Wayne Wirs' site.
Wayne mentioned sharing his enlightenment experiences, so others would know that enlightenment is possible.
I added my "voice of encouragment" to his.
"Discussion ensued".
[:D]
"Fast-forward" to now-ish:
What I am kinda/sorta calling enlightenment, is simply a major "shift" in experiencing that began a few weeks back.
The shift was essentially from knowing that I am awareness experiencing humanity -- to being awareness, experiencing humanity.
Post-shift, there's an experiencing harmony with life ... being the wetness of the ocean, whether the perspective-now is "ocean" or "wave" - with however the ocean is "waving", this moment, being obviously perfect-as-it-is.
The primary quality of the shift, in experiencing, is one of effortlessness, and it is experienced as peaceful fulfillment.
TI has been seeking and offering clarification on the nature of miracles and siddhis, samadhi and enlightenment, with others commenting.
Christi has been offering clarification on the importance of not expressing enlightenment as a definable state, or an actual experience, or connecting it in any way with one's own experience, with others commenting.
That's about it .... and hey, for me .... this *is* a few words!
And Konchok/Adamant Clear Light .... it seems you might have a lot to offer here, if you care to comment (no worries if not).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
One can take the five poisons as the path, boil five down to three or three down to one. The one poison is a self. The radiant clear light is obscured by that. There are no two thoughts.
"Yep."
Five down to three .... five senses down to mind, ego and intellect .... or subject, object, means of knowing (perception), yes?
Three down to one ... subject, object and means-of-knowing (me, the world, perceiving) ... down to unitive awareness, yes?
Yet, for most ... unitive awareness involves an "I" that is aware, yes?
(The "yes?"es are per the fact I'm not 100% sure I understand what the five-to-three, three-to-one, etc. refer to ... but I'm fairly confident as to my guesses).
Ultimately the One can either be "all self" or "no self" .. and all non-dual/tantric (most, if not all, tantric systems are non-dual; all the ones I know of, are ... i.e. Kashmir Shaivism) systems posit this non-duality, with either view (all self, or no self).
All of them agree, thought, that there is just One .. or the No-Thing, manifesting as One ..... the wetness of the one ocean, waving now.
Recently, in experiencing here .... this is what shifted ... from identity being with the all-awareness .... to simply .... being; awareness and manifestation as the one rising-falling-still-wholeness now.
The closest way I know to describe it is: imagine what it feels like to *be* the ocean ... and/or to be a wave arising from the ocean; utter harmony and is-ness, regardless of exact configuration, now .... with "exact configuration" (of waves, of waving, of the depths) not being of concern.
The wetness of the ocean is permanent; the waving continues now .... and now ... and now.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi TI,
Glad you're enjoying the gnostic gospels; the quote you gave is from the Pistis Sophia {?} (I don't recall for sure; I love it, though ... I've read it before). The teachings of Jesus go a lot deeper, and are a lot more in harmony with the enlightenment teachings of all widsom traditions, than many realize.
quote:
I do have one concern with one of your statements from a different post, this one, where you say:
quote:
Maybe miraculous siddhis are real .... there are so many stories, after all (that some would say "they must be real", and some, such as myself, have said "but it's interesting that hardly anyone has *experienced* them" -- though now, there's not even that evaluation; they're just not interesting, nothing not-now, is, really)
I know this is a miracle and I've never told anybody else about it. It is very hard to tell someone about a miracle when there is the chance that they will not believe you. Unit 23 (the psych ward) isn't so far away from where I work.. :)
So, either I'm crazy, or miracles do happen and it's all true. Now ask me again why I'm very interested in siddhis and miracles..
:)
TI
As Wayne said so simply:
Enlightenment and miracles/siddhis simply have nothing to do with one another.
I agree with everything he has said on the matter, as well as with what Shanti has said.
I never said that I haven't experienced things that some might considered miraculous (answers to prayer/effects of samyama that can't be explained "rationally", etc.).
I was solely referring to the connection you seemed to be making with siddhis (miraculous powers described in the Yoga Sutras, and elsewhere) and enlightenment, along with the fact that you have read "many stories" about Buddhist masters who have created/attained a "rainbow body", leaving behind only hair and fingernails.
One side-effect of (what Wayne and I, at least, are calling) "enlightenment" is disengagement from belief ... all belief.
If someone asks me what I believe now, I will answer, as Adyashanti did:
"I don't."
However, like you, I have some memories of some "non-ordinary" situations ... which, again, simply have nothing to do with enlightenment.
Any healing (<- wholeness) power comes from experiencing wholeness as self; by definition, to comprehend any system, one must both include and transcend it. Trying to understand miracles and siddhis with consciousness still identified with form, is akin to trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps: an exercise in frustration, and preparation for eventual cynicism.
It's important (for us all) to be rigorous (observant, aware) so as not to be pulled around by conditioned concepts.
Have I seen instances of non-ordinary healing, or seemingly "impossible" coincidences (which therefore weren't coincidences)? Yes, quite a few times. I don't believe such things are possible; I know, I've experienced them, as have you (TI).
However, does this mean that I have seen, or know anyone who has seen, a master dissolve their physical body, and arise in a "rainbow body", leaving behind their hair and fingernails? No, it does not.
Does this mean than I am absolutely sure that Jesus was an historical person, or that he physically walked on water? No, it does not.
Do I love some of the teachings attributed to Jesus? Yes, I absolutely do.
Does it matter to me if Jesus was historical, alive in a mortal body, at one time? No, it does not. My sense of the applicable aspect of Jesus/Christ is as Christ Consciousness, because Christ Consciousness is one term, among many, for an aspect of consciousness now.
As many/most of you know, I enjoy Kashmir Shaivism, which, per its name ... has a lot to do with Shiva, and sacred writings which are said to have come from Shiva. Some Shaivites speak of Shiva as historical and/or physical, whereas Kashmir Shaivites know that Shiva is a term for original, unborn awareness ... just as Gnostic Christians know the same of Jesus/Christ.
Nothing happens outside consciousness, truly; there is nothing outside consciousness, truly.
Anything that can be thought of can be manifest ... but again, very important:
Concern with manifesting form (siddhis, miracles, etc.) while still identified with form ... is a recipe for remaining identified with form ... hence Wayne's prediction ("still not awakened after twenty years if miracles are the focus").
Awaken ("Enlighten Your Self" [:)]) first ... and you'll know what you need to know exactly when you need to know it ... and ... have available to you any and all power, exactly as you need to have it, and exactly when.
That's how it works.
Every healing/miracle attributed to Jesus either teaches and important principle through symbolism, and/or was utterly selfless ... and his intent is documented as "wishing to remain anonymous" ... but like disciples everywhere, his disciples are said to have broadcast the miracles far and wide.
And so, let your sense of separate self dissolve .... into enlightenment ... and, becoming one with the wholeness you've always actually been, know that all is available to you as needed ... because all is an inherent aspect of this that you actually are now; that we each and all actually are now; One.
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Hi Christi,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kirtanman
As Wayne pointed out, a *huge* part of this issues stems from the mythologizing of enlightenment (over the centuries, and by many modern spiritual teachers, as well) ... people feel like someone they know/know of, can't "be enlightened", because:
A. "Enlightenment isn't like that!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
I think this is the whole issue here really. The truth is, we can't actually know can we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know what?
If there's the experience of enlightenment, or not?
I can see that my last post was potentially confusing so I will try to explain better using a few more words (but hopefully not too many [;)] [:D]).
You seemed to be saying in the first place that when you offer people the opportunity to come and enjoy enlightenment with you, you get a range of responses, which you find confusing. I was trying to explain from my own perspective why I thought you might be getting some of those responses.
Firstly (on a slight side note), the conversation we had at the beginning of this thread was largely about teaching method. I was saying basically: "Be careful, presenting pure advaita (or pretty pure advaita) as it can potentially be confusing and lead people astray on the spiritual path". And I was also saying that if you are offering an invitation, rather than teaching anything, and that the invitation could still potentially lead people astray, then the duties and responsibilities that should normally apply in teaching should still apply to the invitation.
I was saying a couple of other things as well, which were basically about making sure that you avoid some of those traps yourself, especially the trap of thinking that you have arrived anywhere (completed the journey).
With the discussion that you have been having in this thread with TI, I basically see it as going something like this:
Kirtanman: "Here is Wayne Wirs' website, he is obviously an authentic enlightened guy, and it's great to see him on top of the mountain".
TI: "How do you know he's enlightened, I thought that only enlightened people can recognise another enlightened person?"
Kirtanman: "That's right. I'm enlightened, so I can tell that Wayne Wirs is enlightened."
TI: "So are you omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, and can you display all the siddhis that go along with that state of being?"
Kirtanman: "Nope, none of the above".
TI: But many teachers say that someone who is enlightened experiences omniscience, omnipresence and is omnipotent, and can display all the siddhis that go along with that if they choose to?"
Kirtanman: "Well, all those teachers got it wrong, and I know that because I'm enlightened, and I don't experience any of those things and can't perform any of those siddhis, and basically have no interest to."
So, as I see it, you are not only saying: "Hey everyone, enlightenment is great, why not enjoy it too!” but are also saying: "Enlightenment is this (ABC) and anyone who says it is anything else (including thousands of spiritual teachers over several thousand years), is basically deluded, and is suffering from belief in the myths about enlightenment.
From where I'm sitting, I would say there is no way you can know that to be true. You may believe it, but belief is different from knowledge. You may have been told it is true, or read it in a book, but that doesn’t make it true. So basically that idea (the idea that enlightenment is only what you -Kirtanman- are experiencing and nothing else) is an idea formation in your mind. When there is attachment to an idea form then that becomes a fixed view.
The other side of that fixed view is: “Enlightenment is accompanied by omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, and all the siddhis that accompany those qualities”. This is also something that cannot be known, except by a person who has all those qualities (or at least the omniscience one), so until then it is also a thought formation in the mind, which, if attached to, becomes a fixed view. And when two opposite fixed views are being held onto, discussion can go around in circles and dialectics are resorted to in order to end the dispute, as TI mentioned above.
Issues over opposing fixed views often end either two ways, in confusion (in the form of: “but I can’t understand why nobody understands what I’m saying?”), or in frustration (in the form of: “if you don’t agree with me you can... *$$*”). [:)]
So even when it appears that the contractual ego is in abeyance, and we are living in a continual state of bliss and peace, there can still be a very subtle movement of contracted ego, which can try to lay claim to the experience. This can begin in the form of “I’m enlightened, I made it, this is it”, and can spread very subtly to include “If this is it, then anyone who says enlightenment is anything other than this, must be wrong”. And the mind is back in control, only this time it is far more dangerous, because there is the idea that there is no ego, and so therefore no views to attach to, and therefore nothing to be on guard against. If someone else has a problem, it must be their problem, because they still have an ego, right?
The mind can say: “If I’m free, then I am blameless, and everything I do is right”. It is a slippery slope, because it absolves the enlightened from responsibility, and when enlightenment is present, one has to be more responsible, because others will put their faith and trust in you whether you want it or not.
I remember Yogani was once talking about Adyashanti and the dangers involved in teaching and he said this:
"Yes, I would agree that Adyashanti is at risk, just as all adored teachers have been. All it takes is a few wayward desires on the part of the teacher (who doesn't have them?) and it can run astray in a hurry."
http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=1502&whichpage=2#18815
At the time I couldn’t understand it. If Adyashanti is enlightened, and enlightenment is, by definition, about being beyond both attachment and desire, then how could Adyashanti have a wayward desire? But in truth, desire doesn’t fall away with enlightenment, and neither does the potential of attachment of any kind. The history of the world is full of examples of spiritual teachers who have fallen prey to the subtle ego masquerading as enlightened mind and leading them astray.
This is why I was warning you of not falling prey to the illusion of thinking that you have arrived (ever). It can go like this: “I’m enlightened… I am now beyond egoic desire and false identification with limited mind. So everything I say must be true, and everything I do must be pure…”. I’ll leave you to imagine how the rest of the story could go. [:)]
quote:
I'm not sure what your experiencing is, with respect to enlightenment ... you haven't said ... and I respect that ...
I know what peace means, and what bliss means, and I know what it means to cry because of the sheer beauty of the freedom of the nature of our true Self. But I am not omnipresent, or omnipotent, or omniscient.
Do I believe that these three things are a part of the process of enlightenment? All I can say is that Yogani has talked about omnipresence with me (which I quoted above), and about the practices, which lead to its development. And I mentioned above how I can see the way in which omnipresence is directly related to omniscience (if you can be anywhere, then you can know anything).
Now everything that Yogani has said to me in the past, which I have been able to verify through my own experience, has turned out to be true. Everything, without exception (and I’m sure you would say the same). So do I think he is telling the truth this time? Well, there is no way that my mind could comprehend it, and if I cannot comprehend something, how could I judge it to be true or false? But, as you, I have already experienced the freedom, peace, joy and love which is beyond the mind, so the simple answer really is, yes, I believe him.
I also understand what you and Wayne are saying, that if someone believes that they cannot be free until they are able to manifest half a dozen siddhis, walk on water and raise the dead, then they could simply be delaying their own liberation. That is true as well. But the flip side of that is (per the quote by Yogani above) that denying siddhis, and the other aspects of our divine potential, could also limit the process of the spiritual transformation of humanity.
Christi
-
Recognizing the enlightened mind for oneself can happen in an instant. Practice that simplicity.
-
Hi Christi,
Thanks for this; helpful as always.
And hey ... your "overview" of my dialog with TI is similar to my "overview" of your dialog with me in the Swami Lakshmanjoo thread ... I'm pretty sure that neither of us see our own commentary in the way it's presented back to us ... but for me, at least, it's still very useful as a "snapshot" of how others (specifically you; with all genuine respect, you do seem to be the only one here with your specific set of concerns) ... may perceive my statements, and which perceptions are not in sync with my lengthy and repeated emphases in other parts of this same thread.
[:)]
I do feel that context is very important .... "going both ways", if you will:
In terms of what I'm saying, it may be helpful for me to clarify what I've said, if it appears to be out of sync with the consistency of the "lengthy and repeated" emphasis portions of my posts.
For others, such as yourself, maybe consider the likely context of given phrasing of mine, and what it's extremely likely that I actually meant, considering my overall comments ... again, with focus on the repeated and lengthy portions; as much as those portions may not be anyone's favorite parts ... both the repetition and emphasis are given to attempt to highlight what I'm actually saying ... which has seemed necessary, to this point.
I say "to this point", because, from my perspective at least, you're addressing items that have been "asked and answered" (a phrase from American courtroom dramas, and possibly actual courtrooms ... [8D]), at least once, very thoroughly .... and more likely, on multiple occasions, in this thread.
And so, I can only conclude (please correct me, if my conclusion isn't accurate) ... that you solely wish to make clear that you won't accept/believe what I have to say, no matter how many times I say it, or how many hopefully-more-clear ways.
That's perfectly fine, of course ... I'm just not really seeing the value in going around "yet again" ... but at the same time, I genuinely don't mind.
I would ask, though, that maybe you simply outline your core issue, with my comments.
I'm truly not clear if you don't understand what I'm saying, or if you understand but don't agree.
Either way is perfectly fine ... it's just that if it's the former, I'll do my best to clarify.
If it's the latter .... probably best to simply "agree to disagree", and move on, I'd say.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kirtanman
As Wayne pointed out, a *huge* part of this issues stems from the mythologizing of enlightenment (over the centuries, and by many modern spiritual teachers, as well) ... people feel like someone they know/know of, can't "be enlightened", because:
A. "Enlightenment isn't like that!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
I think this is the whole issue here really. The truth is, we can't actually know can we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know what?
If there's the experience of enlightenment, or not?
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
You seemed to be saying in the first place that when you offer people the opportunity to come and enjoy enlightenment with you, you get a range of responses, which you find confusing. I was trying to explain from my own perspective why I thought you might be getting some of those responses.
Okay.
What I was saying was very simple, really ..... same thing Wayne said:
Enlightenment (or other-term-as-preferred) is real; if you've had any doubt about that, we're saying you can experience it, whatever you want to call it.
That's it.
There wasn't really a "range of responses", so much as "Christi and TI taking exception, along with TI asking some questions" regarding Kirtanman using the term "enlightenment" with respect to his own experiencing.
That's fine; opinions vary, as do definitions.
After all the dialog, and all the repeated and pertinent clarifications:
*Yes, I agree, there's no "I" in enlightenment.
*Yes, I agree, there's no "fixed position" for (what some call) enlightenment; it's a shift in sense of self .. or, more accurately a shift from fixed sense of self to no fixed sense of self.
*Yes, I agree, relative development/expansion occurs after enlightenment; the "permanent" aspect is a shift from identification with a "story of me" to no such identification, in experience.
*Yes, I agree, not everyone calls this enlightenment; I'm simply not sure of a better term to use; not using any term at all doesn't necessarily seems like a good solution, either.
*Some people and traditions do call what Wayne and I are experiencing "enlightenment", more or less; in fact, most other definitions I know -- including Yogani's, seem to be virtually identical, except for slightly different phrasing.
*Christi feels that saying "enlightenment is real" is equivalent to teaching about enlightenment and certain warnings issued, and/or "care taken" when making such a statement, so as not to hinder or harm other yogic practitioners.
*Kirtanman respectfully disagrees with Christi on this point.
*TI feels that enlightenment may involve siddhis, though is flexible on this point.
*Wayne & Kirtanman both state that miracles and enlightenment are not directly connected.
*TI is concerned that Kirtanman may not accept the veracity of occurrences that could be called miraculous.
Have you stopped to consider what enlightenment *really* is, Christi?
Enlightenment is a word.
You don't like my use of the word enlightenment, in describing my recent shift/experiences, or in telling others that enlightenment is possible.
"So noted."
I don't know that anything else is really applicable to do or say about that ... though am genuinely open to suggestions.
I really don't think that you want this to be about "Christi's view", any more than I would want it be about "Kirtanman's view" ... correct?
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Firstly (on a slight side note), the conversation we had at the beginning of this thread was largely about teaching method.
I was saying basically: "Be careful, presenting pure advaita (or pretty pure advaita) as it can potentially be confusing and lead people astray on the spiritual path". And I was also saying that if you are offering an invitation, rather than teaching anything, and that the invitation could still potentially lead people astray, then the duties and responsibilities that should normally apply in teaching should still apply to the invitation.
Got it. I can officially/formally say, now, that I respectfully disagree.
I'm not teaching anything (in a formal sense of the term; informally, we all teach, with every post), and I share none of the concerns regarding potential harm, that you have.
Your concerns are repeatedly stated throughout this thread, so there's no chance they'll be missed ... and readers can go over your statements, and mine, and take away what they will.
quote:
I was saying a couple of other things as well, which were basically about making sure that you avoid some of those traps yourself, especially the trap of thinking that you have arrived anywhere (completed the journey).
Duly noted.
And, as responded before: there's no thinking in particular, no concept of completion, no concept of "ongoing development or not", other than in the evidence sense that everything is ongoing, and no statement of completion, other than the "dropping of the me story", and the recent experiential shift I've described ... which is a permanent cessation of belief in, and reaction to the me-story.
quote:
With the discussion that you have been having in this thread with TI, I basically see it as going something like this:
Kirtanman: "Here is Wayne Wirs' website, he is obviously an authentic enlightened guy, and it's great to see him on top of the mountain".
As previously clarified, repeatedly:
"Top of the mountain" was a figure of speech, of casual phrasing.
I thought this whole thread might be a "one or two post" kind of thing; I was just saying "here's an interesting web site" .... I do that a lot; I had no idea the m-word (mountain) or e-word (enlightenment) would be such an issue for you, or create so many ongoing questions from TI ... both aspects of which are perfectly fine, and have made for good dialog, I'd say.
quote:
TI: "How do you know he's enlightened, I thought that only enlightened people can recognise another enlightened person?"
Kirtanman: "That's right. I'm enlightened, so I can tell that Wayne Wirs is enlightened."
TI: "So are you omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, and can you display all the siddhis that go along with that state of being?"
Kirtanman: "Nope, none of the above".
TI: But many teachers say that someone who is enlightened experiences omniscience, omnipresence and is omnipotent, and can display all the siddhis that go along with that if they choose to?"
Kirtanman: "Well, all those teachers got it wrong, and I know that because I'm enlightened, and I don't experience any of those things and can't perform any of those siddhis, and basically have no interest to."
So, as I see it, you are not only saying: "Hey everyone, enlightenment is great, why not enjoy it too!” but are also saying: "Enlightenment is this (ABC) and anyone who says it is anything else (including thousands of spiritual teachers over several thousand years), is basically deluded, and is suffering from belief in the myths about enlightenment.
Not exactly; please allow me to clarify.
[:)]
Enlightenment may be defined by different people in different ways; definition is like that; people are like that.
The experiencing of what Wayne and I (and Yogani, and Adyashanti, and Nisargadatta and on and on and on) are speaking of, here, is fundamental to consciousness/awareness.
It's the experiencing that everyone involved in a spiritual path is seeking, until they find ... when the whole seeking/finding dynamic dissolves into itself ... and there's just wholeness.
Part of the dynamic of expressing it, is that some people aren't going to like the expressing of it, for whatever reason.
That's fine ... it's not about being listened to, or believed; it's not about whether or not current experiencing by anyone, concerning enlightenment, or whatever the awareness of unbound living is termed, or how that matches up to previously given definitions ... by anyone.
Focus on this is focus on the finger pointing at the moon.
The wisdom of looking at the moon (where we are pointing with our experiencing/inviting) seems that it might reside in saying (to oneself):
"Hey, that sounds pretty nice; I'd like that, too!!"
Or
"Hey, that sounds like my experiencing; good for you!"
Or
"Hm; that doesn't sound quite right; ah, well; peace."
Just please note:
ALL of my comments, have been in response to questions and/or challenges and/or disagreement (meaning: it was never originally intended to announce enlightenment dramatically or at length, nor to go into any comparison regarding how "enlightenment here" might sync up (or not) with reports of enlightenment, theories of enlightenment and overviews of enlightenment from the world's wisdom traditions from throughout history, and all around the world.
And again, pretty much anyone who "dares speak of enlightenment" is questioned about it, and that's fine ... there's just probably no need to keep circling if you (Christi) disagree with either my stated experiencing, or what I seem to be saying (despite the repeated clarification).
Regarding Omniscience:
This is another "biggie".
Thinking mind holds a concept (whatever it may be, in the given thinking mind) about what Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence really mean.
Usually, it's some fantasy of god-like power (whatever that may be conceptually fantasized to be, in thinking mind).
The actually, in "experiencing here" (purely speaking of my/non-my experience, not anyone else's, etc. etc. etc.) ..... is this:
Original awareness is undefined; without content.
Being without content, there is no limitation; original awareness precedes limitation; all limitation and definition arise from it, display within it, subside back into, and are made of it.
Therefore, original awareness is all-knowing .... purely because there is *nothing to know* ... all-knowing is part of all being ...... which is simply the experiencing of-as original awareness ...... not anything mythical, magical, supernatural or fantastical.
Ditto Omnipresence: original awareness is without qualities, and is inherently everywhere, now; it's not a mysterious thing .... just actuality.
And ditto Omnipotence ... yes: All-Power .... power .... shakti .... is the pure formless potential of the infinite field of energy inherently available in-as original awareness; that's all it is; potential is all-powerful *because* it is potential.
Omniscience
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Shiva
Shakti
Shivashakti
Being
Awareness
Living
Sat
Chid
Ananda
It's very easy for the concept-called-me to presume that omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are about objective form ... when they're only, ever about the reality of the subjective-formless ... the Self we each and all actually are now ... whether we're consciously experiencing this, or not.
All those things can only be concepts in mind, now.
Which is a subset of this that we are, now.
quote:
From where I'm sitting, I would say there is no way you can know that to be true.
Exactly; from where you're sitting, that's true.
[:)]
"Per above" ... I wasn't saying that omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience aren't actually aspects of enlightenment .... simply that siddhis, etc. at TI was outlining them, as a direct aspect of enlightenment, was not correct, in my experience.
TI and I discussed this, and cleared it up, as far as I know. I have no idea whether we agreed; that doesn't matter; we both clarified why we each feel experience the way that we do ... and are moving forward with new, mutually helpful dialog and information.
quote:
You may believe it, but belief is different from knowledge.
I actually don't believe anything.
Belief is conceptual; there's truly no interest in the conceptual, here -- other than as a potential tool, in certain very specific instances (maps and models of consciousness which may serve to help people *out* of unconsciousness more quickly ... which involves awareness, and understanding that all maps and models are the finger ..... and the one's experiencing alone is/can be, the moon).
quote:
You may have been told it is true, or read it in a book, but that doesn’t make it true. So basically that idea (the idea that enlightenment is only what you -Kirtanman- are experiencing and nothing else) is an idea formation in your mind.
I've done my best not to operate from conceptual belief for quite some time, having understood that illusion can only be kept in place by it.
Belief is the single most powerful enlightenment-prevention tool in existence.
(Very different, by the way from faith; "belief" is prejudicial attachment to concept; faith is/can be the openness which allows for opening to reality/wholeness.)
Ultimately, we're talking about definitions, here, Christi:
I'm saying that in my experiencing (more accurately: "experiencing here" -- no me-concept; that's a figure of speech), there's awareness of certain things (i.e. what is meant by omniscience, etc.; whether or not siddhis are part of enlightenment, etc.).
You're saying I can't know this, and that it must be an idea in mind, a concept.
I'm saying that this is not the case; I know, and it is not a conceptual belief or concept.
This isn't argumentative, simply re-statement of experiencing, as clearly as words can state it.
I also realize that in your view, my experiencing does not fit with your definition of "enlightenment" .... and that's fine as well.
quote:
When there is attachment to an idea form then that becomes a fixed view.
Yes; this is exactly the conceptual prejudice I describe above .... the very attachment that prevents enlightenment.
If there is one single approach/attachment to avoid, if enlightenment is the goal ... attachment to ideas is it.
In actuality, if all attachment to ideas is released -- enlightenment is the result.
quote:
The other side of that fixed view is: “Enlightenment is accompanied by omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, and all the siddhis that accompany those qualities”.
Yet, as always .... at the levels of manifestation and form, there may well be more than two "sides" ... rather, multiple facets/interpretations, if you will.
One of these "alternate interpretations" (and in my case, experiencing .... meaning: the overview I gave of the "omni"s is one way of outlining experiencing here; any definition is secondary to the experiencing).
You (Christi) and/or others, may say "but omniscience, etc. aren't like that ... because I don't imagine they are like that." .... which is perfectly fine, of course.
Ultimately, if experiencing is primary ... and harmony with actuality is primary ... and clearest possible articulation, when articulation happens is prioritized ... any variance in definition and/or concept will likely sort itself out, naturally.
Interestingly, you repeatedly warn against fixed view, yet (please correct me, if this is not accurate, in your experiencing) .... yet you seem to be holding the fixed view that my experiencing cannot be called enlightenment, accurately .... based on other fixed views (concepts regarding what enlightenment means, concepts regarding what the parameters of enlightenment are, etc.)
And I genuinely don't mean this disparagingly, or as a push-back ... more in the sense of: you've suggested "taking a look at certain things" might be helpful .... and I'm suggesting the same, in your case, with respect to this dynamic (using concepts to determine the validity of my experiencing and/or definitions, in your conception).
While, at the same time, remaining open to the possibility that you may not be doing this; I'm just not seeing how you may not be doing this .... and I invite you to help me see, if possible (and/or notice that it's happening; whichever is true, of course).
[:)]
quote:
This is also something that cannot be known, except by a person who has all those qualities (or at least the omniscience one)
Unless one is experiencing original, formless awareness in such a way, that what is *actually* meant by those terms is seen/experienced as different than most conceptual interpretations.
Even evidently, Christi ........ we're attempting to discuss formless awareness, and/or the experiencing of (once again "what I am calling") enlightenment ... with you continually referring back to form, concept and definition ... and your repeated assertions that any variance in those definitions isn't acceptable.
And my genuine apologies in advance if any of this sounds harsh; I'm sitting here happily smiling ..... and, at the same time .... feeling it's important, if we're going to continue this discussion ... to be a bit more rigorous with our clarity ... and I'm more than willing to do so, myself, as much as I can (discussing the formless using the form of words has been problematic for some time .... hence Lao Tzu's opening the Tao Te Ching with the line ... "The Tao which can be spoken of is not the Tao").
I would invite you to at least open to the possibility that maybe enlightenment is different than what you've conceived, to this point.
I'm not saying you should accept my view; I truly have no view; I've simply been attempting to articulate experience.
When you and TI both (effectively) said:
"That's not enlightenment."
and/or
"That's not the correct way to speak of enlightenment."
and/or
"That has to be an idea, that can't be experience."
and/or
"Enlightenment isn't as you say."
..... the most useful response, in general, would likely begin and end with:
"Okay."
For one, that's how I feel.
And for two, there's really nothing else to say, especially since, in your case, you seem very committed to feeling the way you feel about the items you're mentioning on an ongoing basis.
However, I do genuinely trust the flow of it all .... and this mutual conversation, among all of us, will hopefully serve as a helpful "snapshot", from which people can take what they will .... and, as I'm sure that we all inherently intend will, from any angle .... facilitate enlightenment for the reader.
[:)]
quote:
so until then it is also a thought formation in the mind, which, if attached to, becomes a fixed view.
In opinion there, yes; in experiencing here, no ... as outlined above.
I understand and accept that you see it differently.
quote:
And when two opposite fixed views are being held onto, discussion can go around in circles and dialectics are resorted to in order to end the dispute, as TI mentioned above.
I thought those were extinct?
[8D]
Seriously: I remember TI *mentioning* dialectics ... but I'm not so sure I actually *saw* any .... but that could well be because I don't exactly remember what dialetics, means ..... other than I think L. Ron Hubbard had something to do with it .... (*kidding* ....!! And .... going to look up Dialectics ......) ...
Okay .... the most general definition seems to be:
": any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict."
Though there's also:
": discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas
3 : the logic of fallacy
4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
5 usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an intellectual exchange of ideas
6 : the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements.
Source:Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dialectic)
.... and I'm not really sure if TI and I did any of that, or not .... we can both sound kinda smart, but I, at least, am not so sure I'm *that* smart ...... [:D]
quote:
Issues over opposing fixed views often end either two ways, in confusion (in the form of: “but I can’t understand why nobody understands what I’m saying?”), or in frustration (in the form of: “if you don’t agree with me you can... *$$*”). [:)]
Yes, I see this, too, and have experienced it, many times (both as "concept-holder", in the past, and when someone else didn't agree with, or like, what I was saying.)
In saying "people respond" .... or whatever I said, this was my sincere-attempt-to-be-polite way of not "singling out" you and TI .... though there was no reason to do this; the authors of every post being quite clear.
I'd have to look back and see what I said (as Adyashanti says: "Hell, *I* don't remember what I say ... I don't know why anyone else bothers!")
[8D]
And, if I ever came across as seeming like I was in the latter "mode or mood" ... I wasn't.
TI was seeming a bit irritated ... and when I realized this, I apologized for the comment which seemed to have made him irritated ... stating honestly that I understood how it could have done so.
Apparently, to you at least .... my returning to statements of my experiencing, and/or exchange of information (specifically with TI) .... can appear to reflect some form of adherence to fixed views (there isn't any) or ... what? ... defensiveness? Upset? There isn't any of either of those, either.
I may have presumed that more people understand when I'm in humor-mode, as evidenced by "grinny-face" (I prefer it to clown-face) .... or sunglasses-face (as close to "tongue-in-cheek" as our current library of "smileys" offers) ... than actually do.
For instance:
When I said to TI "my information can beat up your information" ..... that was a *joke* .... I was joking about the futility of that approach for one, and "calling myself" on having the tendency (to "throw references" out, as a matter of long-standing habit, and which can be informationally useful, if readers will let it be ... but isn't always the best approach, I'm finding) ... but was *mostly* making the point that, especially these days, "supporting information" for any view can be found easily .... and even if there are "more instances" of one view ... that certainly doesn't make it right.
And so, the entire approach of "somebody said this" .... just isn't a great approach, where enlightenment is the goal, or the topic, or the experiencing being articulated.
I felt like I was pointing this out to TI in a light-hearted way .... not realizing that he was already somewhat irritated, headed for "really irritated" .... but again (TI, please comment if you feel otherwise) ... it seems we've both moved on from the "vibe" of those few posts, and it's all good, quite literally.
Directly put, though:
I literally can't recall the last time there was a sense of "I" who had anything to defend, let alone any view ... but it was prior to the shift (five-six weeks ago), at least .... or, the last time there was any feeling of upset, here (ditto).
I fully realize, thought: my words could seem that way, to some readers ....... because everyone processes "how the words seem" through their own conditioning .... that's the way words/processing of meaning/interpretation goes.
I'm just stating, in order to be clear, per what you've written Christi, how I actually feel/felt ... and that there has been no fixed view, or operartion from concept ... or mental or emotional reaction, here; solely articulation of experiencing, along with a bit of my "sense of things", based on that experiencing ... and full enjoyment of the process, every moment, and every word (<-- "good thing!!" [:D]
quote:
So even when it appears that the contractual ego is in abeyance, and we are living in a continual state of bliss and peace, there can still be a very subtle movement of contracted ego, which can try to lay claim to the experience.
Indeed; we've all seen this, and have read/heard teachings about how this works.
That's part of the "why" any reliance on concept, and enlightenment, are indeed mutually exclusive.
For instance, in saying that "omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence" are actually referring to the non-limitation of original awareness, I'm going by my experiencing, along with some detailed teachings concerning this view, as offered by the Pratyabhijna school of Kashmir Shaivism, specifically Abhinavagupta's commentaries on the Para-Trisika-Vivarana.
Does that mean my view that this set of teachings is correct, is the only interpretation?
Of course not.
All it means is:
*My experiencing is my experiencing; it's complete within itself.
*There are alternate views, from some qualified and respected teachers, which at least open the possibility of understanding the "omni" terms in a way that doesn't require superhuman powers.
quote:
This can begin in the form of “I’m enlightened, I made it, this is it”, and can spread very subtly to include “If this is it, then anyone who says enlightenment is anything other than this, must be wrong”.
Sure; that's a possibility for some who think they're enlightened, who are not ... and that description is one description of "not" ... rather obviously.
None of that is the experience, here.
I'm not saying you or anyone need to agree with me, on any point.
I'm also not saying that "siddhis" are not real .... simply that they are not connected with enlightenment, and that focus on siddhis, or miracles, or anything else in the realms of form, keeps enlightenment occluded as long as this focus remains ... and puts the seeker in the position of fight the flow of consciousness, rather than swimming with it.
Anything is potentially real, and *can* happen; that doesn't mean that it has happened, nor does it mean it has not happened .... all of that is conceptual, and so, "from here" ... not of interest.
[:)]
ALL I'm saying about enlightenment, is that:
*In general, the cessation of the me-story is one definition people give regarding "enlightenment".
*It feels as enlightenment is described:
-simple yet full knowing that this freedom from concept and conceptual self is what is meant by "enlightenment", in most definitions and descriptions I know.
-A vast increase in peace, presence and sense of harmony with life, along with a vast decrease in thoughts, and an almost complete cessation (like 99%ish) of even momentary body-mind reactions ... which happen as long as the body-mind remains, as many sages, including Nisrgadatta have outlined - he said ... well "into enlightenment" ... that ego-reactions in the body-mind arise ... and they are immediately seen through and thus dissolved, and so, barely noticed (yet they do arise; they "go with the body-mind" as I've said before).
-There's no attachment, really, to calling it enlightenment .... yet, as the same time, I don't feel a sense that a small chorus of objections, primarily yours, indicates that this term should actually be discarded, either.
And, I hope I've cleared up the "there's no operating from thought or conceptual mind" here "issue" you've felt ... though if I haven't, I would guess there is nothing I can to in order to clear it up.
My expression of experiencing is as accurate as I know how to make it, using words, and there's no attachment to definitions ... mine or anyone else's.
That's as simply as I know how to put it (sentence above).
quote:
And the mind is back in control, only this time it is far more dangerous, because there is the idea that there is no ego, and so therefore no views to attach to, and therefore nothing to be on guard against. If someone else has a problem, it must be their problem, because they still have an ego, right?
Yes, if there's such a story, I agree with you that this would be "dangerous", in the sense that that concept-story would be occluding enlightenment, while simply in a different dream ... one that enlightenment was actual.
Yet ... the idea that "I can't relax; I must be on guard .... because there could still be an ego" ... is ... guess what? ... Yep .... *ego* (aka conceptual thinking) ... attempting to sneak in through the back door.
I realize that from where you sit ... there appears to be this "danger" with respect to me/my statements, based primarily (it seems) ... on your sense that my discounting of the "omni" words conflicts with your strongly held belief in a single interpretation of those words (that they can only mean that "further development after unity consciousness" means superhuman powers).
All I can tell you is: there is neither operation from ego nor conceptual view, here.
Words are limited, and may make it seem otherwise; this doesn't mean the statement above is not true.
To ego, I imagine this always sounds like a dangerous comment ("no ego here") ... whereas I just mean it definitionally: there's no experience of "I", and no sense of "right or wrong" views; purely articulation of experiencing, along with clarification, based on this experiencing (enlightenment ......) of "sense of some things here".
I would invite you to at least considering accepting that statement as true ... or, at least, the possibility that it might be true.
If you cannot or will not do so; no problem .... and on we go.
[:)]
quote:
The mind can say: “If I’m free, then I am blameless, and everything I do is right”. It is a slippery slope, because it absolves the enlightened from responsibility, and when enlightenment is present, one has to be more responsible, because others will put their faith and trust in you whether you want it or not.
Yes, but as you may or may not have noticed .... just as with the experiencing of enlightenment itself, the responsibility can and does reside solely with the "enlightened" ... and not with anyone else's opinions about the enlightened (because otherwise, there can be sliding down the *other* side of the slippery-slope .... the faux-enlightened feeling as though "they see me this way; that's not good ... must adjust!" .... which is equally problematic).
Basically, prior to enlightenment, great care must be taken, regarding who is accepted as enlightened or not .... if that even comes up; it doesn't have to.
The *entire* path consists of dropping the story of the me ... which is usually brought about by awareness/inquiry, meditation, and quite often, complementary yoga/spiritual practices.
Accepting/rejecting others as enlightened may or may not be helpful to that process.
As Yogani says in every post:
"The guru is in you."
This is literally true.
There's no actual outer guru; the outer guru is a place-holder until it is seen that the unity of connectedness with all; identity with all, *is* reality ... that's what the outer guru exists to help the seeker see ..... that the guru and the seeker are non-different.
And so, an "outer guru" is not needed for all ... yet some benefit from having one, whereas others learn equally valuable lessons in that anti-enlightenment possibilities that gurus can offer, as well .... but ultimately ... the inner guru .... the pure intuitive awareness that is/in each/all, here ... is the "final arbiter" of how it all arises; this is simply consciously known ... or it isn't consciously known, yet.
quote:
I remember Yogani was once talking about Adyashanti and the dangers involved in teaching and he said this:
"Yes, I would agree that Adyashanti is at risk, just as all adored teachers have been. All it takes is a few wayward desires on the part of the teacher (who doesn't have them?) and it can run astray in a hurry."
http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=1502&whichpage=2#18815
At the time I couldn’t understand it. If Adyashanti is enlightened, and enlightenment is, by definition, about being beyond both attachment and desire, then how could Adyashanti have a wayward desire? But in truth, desire doesn’t fall away with enlightenment, and neither does the potential of attachment of any kind. The history of the world is full of examples of spiritual teachers who have fallen prey to the subtle ego masquerading as enlightened mind and leading them astray.
True that ... though there then becomes the question of whether or not the enlightenment was actual, in the first place.
In the case of Adyashanti, he would have to both have the desire, and give in to it ........ the latter part being what Yogani was speaking about. I know that Adyashanti feels, and consistently demonstrates, that while untrue thoughts can arise, that they are seen through very, very quickly ... and that they arise less and less ..... and yet, if there's ever an increase, he will act accordingly, to dissolve any strengthening of reliance in untrue thought ... which basically ceases to be a problem, at a certain point .... and when it does ... it really does.
Yet, your points are well made; the operating aspect is *if* .... *if* untrue thoughts/belief in conceptual form .... returns for more than a moment.
As Adya also points out: after realization (experience of true nature, regardless of duration, as I'm using the term, here) ..... returning to identification with limited mind (as self) would be most unwise ... not to mention largely impossible, if the realization is authentic.
And so, "inquiry" at that point, ideally becomes:
How am I unenlightening myself in this moment?
(If unenlightenment arises for more than an instant.)
After what I'm calling enlightenment .... the sense of sand running out of the hourglass/effortless flow, with no trouble from limited mind .... this "post-realization" inquiry doesn't seem to be needed ... only because the flashes/reactions of limited mind do only last for an instant or two ... before they're seen through/dissolved in what feels like one motion.
And please understand:
There's no "I'm enlightened" sense and defense thereof; the benefits of enlightenment are far too great to ever go there; there's no non-prioritization of maintaining identification with awareness. Currently, it's effortless and naturally; if effort is ever required, effort is then immediately the top priority.
Enlightenment truly is the only important thing is life ... except enlightenment isn't a "thing" ... enlightenment *is* life .... having it more abundantly, and knowing it in reality; and from experiencing here .... preserving-sharing it is every bit as important as melting into it was, prior to the experiencing.
Enlightenment is defined in various ways .... and some define realization as initial experience of truth/true identity ... and enlightenment as the phase (for lack of a better word) when it becomes permanent/effortless/the default condition.
This is how I'm using the term.
Realization here was some years ago; a very major instance of it a bit over two years ago, with several returns to that condition, and phasing back out of it, since then.
When it (ego/dream/illusion) all *finally* falls away, it's known.
Until such time, vigilance is only wise.
After such time, vigilance is a hindrance, because it reintroduces form as a means to evaluate this that is actually formless .... a very light-occluding idea, indeed.
*IF* this then displays in/from/as a given teacher or person who behaves in very deluded/egoic ways .... then enlightenment wasn't the permanent condition that is sometimes used to define enlightenment .... but something temporary.
Sincerity and honesty within oneself are the keys, here; if there's no-mind, mind-reference, on any level, in any way, is counter-productive to re-introduce. If there's limited-mind/ego for more than the briefest moment (if ego/limited mind) re-appears ... then a return to the practices/vigilance which assist the dissolution of any reliance upon, or belief in, the distortions of ego ... is the only sincere thing to do.
It seems as though you may not have understood that I was aware of this ... and now, hopefully, you are.
If you still have concern, please know that I do understand your warnings.
[:)]
And also, it seems you may not have understood:
I've been through the process of the needed vigilance, and have been through the phasing in-and-out which happens after realization; that's what the last few years of my life, have been.
If you look at the time frame of the total sadhana of various enlightened people (quote unquote) .... everyone from Adyashanti and Yogani, to Nisargadatta and Gangaji .... you'll basically be able to plot both time and practices on a chart ... and see an average range from starting to realization to permanent enlightenment.
This may not have been clear, because I wasn't announcing my sense of where I was, every step of the way .... but I have been through this full process .... and both my sadhana, and the time it took to full (not final .... not static ... full ... which is simply the term arising, btw) enlightenment ... falls comfortably within the general range that it seems to take for most people.
Some of the very fortunate go very fast, and experience complete and permanent enlightenment within a short handful of years.
Others may resist clear and replicable instruction, or they may resist releasing the conceptual me ... or not be taught that ultimately, via practices and/or inquiry, that release of the conceptual me *is* the process of moving from apparent unenlightenment to actual enlightenment.
Most, including myself, fall into/within a total trajectory that usually take somewhere around 10-12 years from "start of spiritual path" to "full enlightenment" ......... though my sense of it is: anyone reading this can experience full, permanent enlightenment *much* faster than this.
Most of us who fall in the mid-range stated above ... spend probably half that time not knowing or understanding the right things; the most effective practices, the most useful way to conduct inquiry, etc.
The AYP Lessons has it ALL my friends; if this is your first day reading anything connected with AYP .... there is no reason I know that experiencing full and permanent enlightenment should be more than maybe six to ten years away .... at the very most .... and that's if you've never heard the word "spirituality" in your life before today, and never meditated for a *second*.
And I'm being very conservative in my estimate, here.
"A day" or "right now" doesn't seem to be what most actually experience ... but it doesn't have to take twenty years/not in this lifetime, either.
With effective practices, self-pacing, clear inquiry, group support ... and your own willingness to simply do what others, such as myself, have done to get here .... enlightenment is very much within range for you, and quite possibly even sooner than what I outlined, above.
I understand that there may be a few who may not believe me, or believe this; that's fine; belief isn't required .... only practice, sincerity and awareness are required ... because, ultimately ... enlightenment is just the full knowing of who you actually, are now.
[:)]
quote:
All I can say is that Yogani has talked about omnipresence with me (which I quoted above), and about the practices, which lead to its development.
That's a very good/useful thread/conversation; I recommend it to all.
quote:
Now everything that Yogani has said to me in the past, which I have been able to verify through my own experience, has turned out to be true.
Same here; that's one of the main reasons I've stuck around, why I like it here, and why I enthusiastically refer people here.
[:)]
quote:
But, as you, I have already experienced the freedom, peace, joy and love which is beyond the mind, so the simple answer really is, yes, I believe him.
Very good; I agree ... and would also say that I verify/concur with everything Yogani says, based upon experiencing here .... understanding that I define the "omni" terms differently than you seem to be understanding them ... and will go as far as to guess that Yogani likely defines/experiences omniscience and the rest similar to how I'm defining describing them .... the fullness of awareness is marvelous and infinity ... but infinity, eternity and everything omni .... is the realm of the formless/subjective ... original awareness ...... and not superhuman form.
quote:
I also understand what you and Wayne are saying, that if someone believes that they cannot be free until they are able to manifest half a dozen siddhis, walk on water and raise the dead, then they could simply be delaying their own liberation. That is true as well. But the flip side of that is (per the quote by Yogani above) that denying siddhis, and the other aspects of our divine potential, could also limit the process of the spiritual transformation of humanity.
Yes, absolutely agreed .... "from attachment and aversion be free" as the Gita says, for anyone seeking.
Freedom from (such) attachment or aversion going either way, regarding anything ... is simply experiencing, here.
Reliance upon/belief in concepts .... requires the conceptual self; when the conceptual self finally dissolves ..... there's no interest in concepts.
For anyone who's experiencing this ..... "quite the relief", yes?
For any who's not .... if it sounds really nice .... it is ..... only a million times better than mind can imagine ... because it's closer/more integral than breathing ever could be; enlightenment is living; living unbound; and it is real ..... and I truly don't even want anyone to take my word for it.
I'm just inviting your experiencing of enlightenment.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman,
Thanks for the detailed reply. [:)]
I think we are finally starting to get somewhere. It may well feel that we are going in circles to you, but to me, I feel that progress is being made.
First off, let me just mention that I am not questioning the truth of anything you have said with regard to your own experiencing (and never have). It fills me with joy that you have attained such a profound realization and I am very happy for you. What I have been discussing with you is of the, "how best to share" and "where to next" variety, not the "are you making it up" variety. [:)]
There were just a couple of points that you made that I wanted to clarify/ comment on:
quote:
*Christi feels that saying "enlightenment is real" is equivalent to teaching about enlightenment and certain warnings issued, and/or "care taken" when making such a statement, so as not to hinder or harm other yogic practitioners.
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that making the statement "enlightenment is real", is akin to teaching about enlightenment. I was saying that more extended statements such as: "Enlightenment is real, it can be experienced right now and all you have to do is give up all ideas about being unenlightened", constitutes teaching about enlightenment, and when statements like that are being offered, then some caveats should also be put in place to help protect the reader. You may not agree with that, and that is fine, but I just wanted to make it clear what I was actually saying. It may sound, per this thread, that I am the only person in the world who has these concerns, but then, in the bigger picture, I actually only mention these things very occasionally, (two or three times in the last few years in fact) whereas Yogani has written a whole book about the subject.
quote:
Interestingly, you repeatedly warn against fixed view, yet (please correct me, if this is not accurate, in your experiencing) .... yet you seem to be holding the fixed view that my experiencing cannot be called enlightenment, accurately .... based on other fixed views (concepts regarding what enlightenment means, concepts regarding what the parameters of enlightenment are, etc.)
Just to clarify again, I wasn't saying that identification with subjective awareness isn't enlightenment. I was saying that in my experience it is part of the process of enlightenment which starts with the rise of ecstasy and bliss, moves on to include a shift in identity to subjective awareness and goes on well beyond that. I don't hold this as some kind of fixed view, after all, I may be wrong. It's more in the sense of, many spiritual teachers say it is, it has been true for myself up until the point I am at now, and I have encountered one man for who it obviously was true. He was simply a living expression of that part of the enlightenment process which went beyond identification with subjective awareness to include omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and the celestial realms.
quote:
Enlightenment is a word.
You don't like my use of the word enlightenment, in describing my recent shift/experiences, or in telling others that enlightenment is possible.
Again, just to clarify, I am perfectly happy with your use of the word enlightenment in describing your recent shift/ experiences, and I am overjoyed that you are telling others that enlightenment is possible.
quote:
And so, I can only conclude (please correct me, if my conclusion isn't accurate) ... that you solely wish to make clear that you won't accept/believe what I have to say, no matter how many times I say it, or how many hopefully-more-clear ways.
That's perfectly fine, of course ... I'm just not really seeing the value in going around "yet again" ... but at the same time, I genuinely don't mind.
If it sounds like I am repeating myself a lot, it is often in response to me saying something like: "I think it is really important to be aware of A", and you replying: "Yes, I agree completely, it is really important to be aware of B". Where the A and the B are not the same thing at all. The clarifications that I just made are cases in point.
If I ask a question and you say: "great question" and then answer a different question which you thought I had asked, but which in fact I had not, then often, I just ask the question again with the hope that you might actually answer it this time. I am sure you don’t mind. [:)]
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues over opposing fixed views often end either two ways, in confusion (in the form of: “but I can’t understand why nobody understands what I’m saying?”), or in frustration (in the form of: “if you don’t agree with me you can... *$$*”).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I see this, too, and have experienced it, many times (both as "concept-holder", in the past, and when someone else didn't agree with, or like, what I was saying.)
In saying "people respond" .... or whatever I said, this was my sincere-attempt-to-be-polite way of not "singling out" you and TI .... though there was no reason to do this; the authors of every post being quite clear.
I'd have to look back and see what I said (as Adyashanti says: "Hell, *I* don't remember what I say ... I don't know why anyone else bothers!")
And, if I ever came across as seeming like I was in the latter "mode or mood" ... I wasn't.
My comment there was in reference to Wayne's first post in this thread, which seemed to be coming from a place of frustration, per the bad language and the general disparaging remarks. It is of course fine for people to be frustrated and/ or angry, but usually there is a reason behind it, hence my comments about attachment to views. [:)]
quote:
I actually don't believe anything.
Belief is conceptual; there's truly no interest in the conceptual, here -- other than as a potential tool, in certain very specific instances (maps and models of consciousness which may serve to help people *out* of unconsciousness more quickly ... which involves awareness, and understanding that all maps and models are the finger ..... and the one's experiencing alone is/can be, the moon).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may have been told it is true, or read it in a book, but that doesn’t make it true. So basically that idea (the idea that enlightenment is only what you -Kirtanman- are experiencing and nothing else) is an idea formation in your mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've done my best not to operate from conceptual belief for quite some time, having understood that illusion can only be kept in place by it.
Belief is the single most powerful enlightenment-prevention tool in existence.
A couple of weeks ago we were having a discussion in another thread about Sanskrit translation (you may remember) and you were so attached to the belief that one man's definition of a word was right, that it was almost impossible to hold a sensible conversation with you. [:D] There were more than a couple of moments where I thought: "this guy is so attached to the idea that his view is right that I might as well just give up the conversation." But if you have moved on from that in the last couple of weeks, and now no longer hold fixed views then that is great and I am very happy for you. [:)]
I would only caution that a couple of weeks is a very short time for awareness to become fully established in a place which is really beyond all attachment to views and opinions and perhaps a couple of years, or decades would be a more reasonable time-frame to be thinking of before saying: "That doesn't happen here any more". [:)]
I know you will take these comments in a good light, because after all, one of the advantages of being enlightened is that nothing in conceptual form could ever touch the joy, freedom and bliss of pure radiant awareness. [:)]
quote:
Very good; I agree ... and would also say that I verify/concur with everything Yogani says, based upon experiencing here .... understanding that I define the "omni" terms differently than you seem to be understanding them ... and will go as far as to guess that Yogani likely defines/experiences omniscience and the rest similar to how I'm defining describing them .... the fullness of awareness is marvelous and infinity ... but infinity, eternity and everything omni .... is the realm of the formless/subjective ... original awareness ...... and not superhuman form.
By your definition I am already omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. I feel great now, thanks! [:D]
But seriously, I wonder if you aren't reducing something that is more than simply identification with subjective awareness to... well... identification with subjective awareness. In another thread you said that you believed that the creation of a body of divine light was... well... identification with subjective awareness. Anyone can define terms in any way they want, but if we redefine all our terms to basically mean one thing, and then say: "Look, it's all this one thing", then what have we really accomplished?
We are not going to be able to agree on this now (what is really meant by the terms omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent with regard to the enlightenment process), because there isn't really any way that we could, and it really doesn't matter. Either time will tell, or it won't, but as I say, I don't think it really matters.
In the meantime take a look at this from lesson 153:
"So samyama is also cultivation of the outflowing of divine love which expects nothing in return. If we do our samyama that way, in time we will become radiating beacons of divine light floating in the air.
Then who will be able to deny what we human beings are? Who will not want to become super-normal? "[Yogani]
The man I met who was experiencing omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience according to the standard dictionary definitions of those terms, was radiating light, and floating in the air. Could just be coincidence?
One of the areas that interests me, with regards to siddhis and enlightenment, is the fact that Yogani doesn't simply teach people to ignore siddhis. If enlightenment is the process of shifting identification from form to subjective awareness, and that is the whole of it, then why doesn't Yogani simply tell people to ignore siddhis as they come up? After all, their cultivation wouldn't be necessary for enlightenment to come about and could even be a distraction (as you and Wayne have mentioned). There are many lessons in the main lessons, which are about the deliberate cultivation of siddhis.
Does Yogani have a siddhi fixation, or does he know something that we don’t about the process of enlightenment?
This is probably a question that I should be addressing to Yogani, rather than to you, but I am throwing it in here as food for thought.
Christi
-
Hi Shanti,
That is a very lovely post. Thank you so much. :)
quote:
Originally posted by Shanti
When we believe in Jesus we can make Jesus manifest, if we believe in life outside of the forms we know, we can make aliens manifest, when we believe in miracles (siddhis) we can make miracles manifest.
Perhaps I would reword your statement, because I feel that I did not manifest Jesus. I know you explain that later in your post but, well, I have to say something.. :) I would say "When we make an effort to contact Jesus, Jesus will appear." But yes, belief if a very powerful tool.
quote:
I did not realize the trick was in letting go.
This kind of reminds me of the philosophy behind The Secret. Lately I've been coming accross people like Bruce Roberts and the Hawaiian monks who are saying the exact opposite of 'letting go'.
They both say that in order to manifest something, you have to put all your will/energy/determination/effort/visualization into a relentless effort and stick with it as much as you can. For example, in Merging with Shiva it says:
link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-11.html
quote:
In applying this tantra, begin by repeating the affirmation fifty or a hundred times a day. In watching your reactions, you may find that the subconscious will not accept these three statements, "I can. I will. I am able." You may still have feelings of "I can't. I won't. I am not able." This then begins a period to live through where the mind's magnetic forces fight with one another, in a sense. The aggressive forces of your nature are trying to take over and reprogram the passive ones that have been in charge for so many years. Of course, the aggressive forces will win if you will persist with your verbal and visual affirmation. You must not give up saying, "I can. I will. I am able," until you find the subconscious structure actually creating situations for you in which you can and are able to be successful, happy and acquire what you need, be it temporal goods or unfoldment on the inner path.
Personally, I have tried the methods in The Secret and they did not work for me. I have, however, worked hard towards goals and those goals have nearly always manifested. If a person could love God, 24/7 with no interruptions, they would surely become enlightened.
I believe the power of letting go for manifestion can be productive once you are in a state of deep silence, such as in the AYP's samyama practice, or after empowering your mind through very deep concentrative meditation or after attaining samadhi or one of the jhanas...
Also I believe the idea of not focussing on the outcome is part of a mindfulness method to enable one to be fully present when performing simple tasks and that there is great value in not attaching to the outcome. It is also good not to be attached to anything.
So you see, yes, I do have these beliefs in my suitcase. I will throw the suitcase in the river and let Shakti wash it away.. :)
I wish you all the best. Thank you again for your post.
OM SHANTI :)
:)
TI
-
Those two are not opposite; they go together.
You have to put all your effort into something, and at the same time not be attached to it.
It's kinda tricky, but it's the difference between forcing a goal and enjoying the path.
-
Hi Wayne,
Thank you for your post. :)
I forgot to mention, your pictures all look like satori moments to me. I absolutely love them all.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
All the great teachings say the same thing. You wake up by FEELING who you truly are (ie: Out-flowing Love, Christ consciousness, the Radiant Light) and then DROPPING everything that is BLOCKING that FEELING.
Understanding is important, but FEELING it (practice, practice, practice) is what is so often overlooked these days.
That feeling of who I truly am exists right in front of my face. It is 'that which doesn't change, that feeling that was there when I was a child, that feeling which expands into the forests and scenic landscapes, the feeling that produces a deep aware silence that permeates everything and makes things shine, that awareness that is beyond thought, beyond description, far beyond.. Sometimes it looks like this clear sparkly water coming out from me, radiant and shiny, yet just a tiny bit translucent. I love it!'.
Thank you so much for affirming this.
quote:
PS: TI, I know it sounds like I'm jumping on you (or your personal story), and I am, but it is because, from some of your remarks, you sound like you are close to awakening--but your attachment to the miraculous is actually what is blocking you from waking up (for all the reasons stated above). The miraculous happens because there is LESS of you standing in the way of the Divine, but if you hang onto those miracles, then you create MORE of you (the story), and thus BLOCK the Divine from flowing through. Just let it flow, bud. Let the story go, surrender, and let the Light flow through.
I think anyone who would read my posts might think that I'm an arrogant braggart who is seeking self aggrandizement through the revealing of "things I can do that you can't" point of view, if they did not understand my point of view or know my personal history. Did you know that I haven't had a recreational drug or alcoholic drink for at least 25 years (besides coffee and nicotine)? I'm not bragging here, but I guess it might look like it. I'm just stating a fact which is true for me. I guess it appears that I'm bragging to someone who places that on their ego-envy pedestal for viewing..
That is always a danger. Revealing some experiences that you have had to someone who does not often produces tamasic feelings of envy, desire, hatred etc in the other person unless they have had the same experiences.. Sometimes you think that everybody is just like you so it is really hard to know what to say and what not to say or how it will be taken.
The reason I brought in the miracles is because Kirtanman deemphasized the importance and experience of miracles, and having had practical experiences in the matter, I decided to divulge mine.
There is no great attachment there, and certainly my miracles are few and far in between. There are many people on this forum who have performed more healings (Katrine, emc.. to name a few) than me. To the people I was with at the time when Fred was healed, it was a typical event for their weekly Wednesday night, before going out to 'preach the word on the street'. It is something they did every Wednesday night.
Anyway, thank you again for your perspective.
:)
TI
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
Correct me if I am wrong, but utter non-existence is the primary foundation of Hegel's dialectic..
This is from the "Clear Light of Bliss" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso:
QUOTE:
"AVOIDING MISTAKING THE INTRODUCTION TO THE CONVENTIONAL NATURE OF THE MIND FOR AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ULTIMATE NATURE OF THE MIND
Some Mahamudra Teachers and practitioners assert that when a meditator directly perceives clarity and cognizing without the veil of conceptualization he or she has realized the emptiness that is the ultimate nature of the mind. This is because they believe that clarity and cognizing is the mind's ultimate nature. Students who listen to these instructions also fall into this mistaken view. This misconception arises from a failure to understand the correct view as explained by Protector Nagarjuna. They do not fully understand what 'ultimate nature' means and, if asked what the ultimate nature of the mind is, they cannot establish it as a non-affirming negative. They think that the ultimate nature of the mind is clarity and cognizing free of conceptualization; they do not realize that the ultimate nature of the mind is the non-affirming negative that is the mere absence of the inherent existence of the mind. This mere absence of inherent existence is very subtle and therefore quite difficult to comprehend. Clarity and cognizing, however, is not nearly as subtle and so it is relatively easy to understand. This is one reason why meditators can hold onto erroneous beliefs concerning the ultimate nature of the mind.
According to the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and the view of Nagarjuna, actual emptiness is mere absence of inherent existence, and so it is non-affirming negative. Those who do not understand the subtlety of this view are unable to see any difference between such a non-affirming negative and utter non-existence. For this reason, they make mistakes when trying to understand the ultimate nature of the mind. They assert that non-affirming negatives do not exist at all and therefore reject the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and the view of Nagarjuna. Instead, when they meditate merely on clarity and cognizing and experience it very vividly, they think they are realizing the emptiness that is the ultimate nature of the mind. The emptiness that they are experiencing, however, is merely the lack of physical form and the freedom from conceptualization; it is not lack of inherent existence.
The first Panchen Lama, Losang Chokyi Gyaltsan, soundly refuted this misconception. In his root text on the Mahamudra he wrote:
The mind that is free from conceptualization
Is merely a level of conventional mind;
It is not the mind's ultimate nature.
Therefore seek instruction from qualified Masters.
Thus, the Panchen Lama clearly stated that what some meditators take to be the ultimate nature of the mind - clarity and cognizing - is merely the mind's conventional nature.
If we mistakenly believe this conventional nature of the mind to be its ultimate nature, we may easily develop deluded pride and many other faults. For example, when through meditation we gain a vivid perception of clarity and cognizing, we may feel that we have gained a direct realization of emptiness, and, as it is possible to develop a slightly blissful feeling from such a meditation, we may conclude, 'Now I have developed the spontaneous great bliss of Secret Mantra.' Later we might even come to think, 'Now I have developed the Mahamudra that is the union of spontaneous great bliss and emptiness.' It is possible that, through the force of further meditation, we might for a short time become free from conceptual thought, in which case we may develop the deluded pride that thinks, 'Now I am free from the two obstructions; I have become a Buddha!' In reality, we will not have attained such a sublime state, and sooner or later we will have to confront circumstances, such as objects of anger or attachment, that give rise to the various deluded states of mind. It will then become evident that the 'enlightenment' we experienced was not even a realization of emptiness, let alone enlightenment. All these mistakes come from misunderstanding the ultimate nature of the mind as a result of not following the instructions of qualified Teachers, or not studying such instructions well.
The first Panchen Lama was a highly realized practitioner who always behaved in a very humble manner, but when writing about the need to refute mistaken and misleading teachings he was quite direct:
As we cannot perceive the mindstream of others,
We should stive to appreciate the teachings of all;
But I cannot accept those who spread wrong views
And through these wrong views lead many astray.
What the Panchen Lama wrote several hundred years ago is particularily applicable today. If pure Dharma is to flourish in western countries it is essential that we examine our beliefs carefully to ensure that they are fully in accordance with the pure teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni. The ugly unfortunate result of not understanding pure Dharma and of following misleading teachings that pretend to be pure Dharma is sectarianism. This is one of the greatest hinderances to the flourishing of Dharma, especially in the West. Anything that gives rise to such an evil, destructive mind should be eliminated as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.
Nowadays there is a strong tendency to believe without the slightest hesitation every word spoken by someone of high reputation, whereas a humble practitioner giving perfect and accurate teachings is often neither appreciated nor believed. Buddha Shakyamuni cautioned his disciples against adopting such a mistaken attitude:
Do not accept my teachings simply because I am called Buddha.
Time and time again he reminded his disciples not to accept his teachings out of blind faith, but to test them as thoroughly as they would assay gold. It is only on the basis of valid reasons and personal experience that we should accept the teachings of anyone, including Buddha himself.
In the teachings on the four reliances, Buddha gives further guidelines for arriving at an unmistaken understanding of the teachings. He says:
Do not rely upon the person, but upon the Dharma.
Do not rely upon the words, but upon the meaning.
Do not rely upon the interpretative meaning, but
upon the definitive meaning.
Do not rely upon consciousness, but upon wisdom.
The meaning of these lines is as follows:
1) When deciding which doctrine to rely upon we should not be satisfied with the fame or reputation of a particular teacher, but instead, should examine what he or she teaches. If upon investigation we find the teachings reasonable and faultless, we should accept them, but if they lack these qualities we should reject them, no matter how famous or charismatic their expounder might be.
2) We should not be influenced merely by the poetic or rhetorical style of a particular teaching but should accept if only if the actual meaning of the words is reasonable.
3) We should not be satisfied merely with an interpretative meaning of conventioanl truth but should rely upon and accept the dfinitive meaning of the ultimate truth of emptiness. In other words, because the method teachings on Bodhichitta and the wisdom teachings on emptiness and so forth are companions, we should not be satisfied with only one or the other but should practise both together.
4) We should not be satisfied with impure, deceptive states of consciousness, but should place our reliance upon the wisdom of meditative equipoise of Superior beings.
If we understand these four reliances and use the to evaluate the truth of the teachings we receive, we will be following an unmistaken path. There will be no danger of our adopting false views or falling under the influence of misleading Teachers. We will be able to discriminate correctly between what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected, and we will thereby be protected against faults such as sectarianism."
END QUOTE
So, Kirtanman, do you think there is any chance that you have a mistaken view of 'enlightenment' as described in this text? Have you gained "a vivid perception of clarity and cognizing" or have you realized non-affirming negative emptiness? I don't really want to know the answer to that. Is your need to write voluminous amounts of text that warp, twist and redefine the words of others an indication of some kind of delusion? That is for you to decide or discover. If I were you I would seriously look at that. You're supposed to be blissed out now, not 'trying to prove something' which is the general feeling that I have from your posts. The concepts have been documented and I think that is all I'd like to say about this topic at this time.
Thanks again for the dialectics.
May God bless you.
:)
TI
-
Hi Christi
quote:
Hi Kirtanman,
Thanks for the detailed reply.
You're quite welcome.
quote:
I think we are finally starting to get somewhere. It may well feel that we are going in circles to you, but to me, I feel that progress is being made.
I'm good with that // will (good-naturedly // actually) take your word for it; I think the inverse has been true in a thread or two in the past .. so I'm happy to remain open-minded, and go with what you're saying here.
One of the main reasons being: if you say "progress is being made" .. hey, the fact you feel that way, is a good, sign (I had a sense that you felt "circling" was taking place, too .... just from a different angle .... or whatever circles have .... ).
quote:
"Enlightenment is real, it can be experienced right now and all you have to do is give up all ideas about being unenlightened", constitutes teaching about enlightenment, and when statements like that are being offered, then some caveats should also be put in place to help protect the reader. You may not agree with that, and that is fine, but I just wanted to make it clear what I was actually saying. It may sound, per this thread, that I am the only person in the world who has these concerns, but then, in the bigger picture, I actually only mention these things very occasionally, (two or three times in the last few years in fact) whereas Yogani has written a whole book about the subject.
Fair enough ... though I thought that I had clarified, early on, that I wasn't saying that, alone ... have always experienced practices as essential, and so on ... didn't I?
quote:
If it sounds like I am repeating myself a lot, it is often in response to me saying something like: "I think it is really important to be aware of A", and you replying: "Yes, I agree completely, it is really important to be aware of B". Where the A and the B are not the same thing at all. The clarifications that I just made are cases in point.
If I ask a question and you say: "great question" and then answer a different question which you thought I had asked, but which in fact I had not, then often, I just ask the question again with the hope that you might actually answer it this time. I am sure you don’t mind.
quote:
quote:
My comment there was in reference to Wayne's first post in this thread, which seemed to be coming from a place of frustration, per the bad language and the general disparaging remarks. It is of course fine for people to be frustrated and/ or angry, but usually there is a reason behind it, hence my comments about attachment to views.
To which I would respond:
But not necessarily.
Sometimes, there is presumption that enlightenment "should look" a certain way ... which is attachment to view (I'm not saying you're doing this ... it's just that, per above, it sounds like it's at least possible).
Just as an alternate perspective .... I didn't perceive any attachment to view in what Wayne says ... for one, because I experience his exact expression as more of a personality thing (than anything to do with enlightenment; as you may have noticed, personality doesn't dissolve, or even change much, with enlightenment ... it's hard-wired into the body-mind, for the most part). In the same way that I use a crapload of words, for "an enlightened guy" (or for an unenlightened guy ... or for a small-to-midsized country ... )... Wayne "tells it like it is"; neither of which has any bearing on how "enlightened" or not that either of us may be.
A great Adyashanti quote I read today:
"Evaluation of other people’s non-division is not helpful. The only thing that matters is where you are. In any moment, are you experiencing and acting from division, or are you experiencing and acting from oneness? Which is it?”
That sums the whole thing up, quite nicely, I'd say (very seriously).
quote:
quote:
A couple of weeks ago we were having a discussion in another thread about Sanskrit translation (you may remember) and you were so attached to the belief that one man's definition of a word was right, that it was almost impossible to hold a sensible conversation with you. There were more than a couple of moments where I thought: "this guy is so attached to the idea that his view is right that I might as well just give up the conversation." But if you have moved on from that in the last couple of weeks, and now no longer hold fixed views then that is great and I am very happy for you.
Interestingly, Christi, my perspective was exactly the opposite:
It seemed that you held the fixed view that Swami Lakshmanjoo was "simply wrong" (I believe that's a direct quote from you), per your sense that the term "Devas" could not possibly be referring to sensory organs, because this definition was at odds with with the parameters you imagine an accurate description of devas must fall within.
I was just citing sources and resources, along with my relatively considered view as to why/how that definition was as potentially useful as any other.
Definition is usually part of the problem; if a term, or a symbol (such as "deva", or anything else for that matter) can be utilized to help take consciousness *out* of the dream state ... I saw that as useful; that's all.
Informational support for an informational argument (used in the logic sense, not the disagreement sense) does not necessarily indicate "fixed view", any more than expression of frustration (or any other expression).
As Adyashanti helpfully points out in that quote:
It's about whether or not non-division is the experience; period.
Is there, or is there not, conflict, in experience?
When we were having the discussion about Swami Lakshmanjoo, I felt zero division ... and zero attachment to any view, actually; I was simply pointing out that I felt there was significant reference for the view I was supporting as being reasonable, well-considered, promoted by very qualified people, regarding the topic at hand ... and, more important than any of those ... potentially useful as an illustration that can help facilitate enlightenment.
I was having a good time; it seemed you basically were, too. I figure if anyone is ever "truly not" .. it's probably best to stop a discussion at that point; goodwill is more important than being relatively "right" or "wrong", I'm guessing we both agree ... though neither of us are too susceptible to "ill will" either, so hey, it's all good.
quote:
quote:
I would only caution that a couple of weeks is a very short time for awareness to become fully established in a place which is really beyond all attachment to views and opinions and perhaps a couple of years, or decades would be a more reasonable time-frame to be thinking of before saying: "That doesn't happen here any more".
Ultimately, and I'll "call myself" on not being rigorous enough, to date, regarding what I'm about to say:
*Nothing* can be said to "not happen here" any longer ... by anyone; if it hasn't happened yet, prediction is just an exercise in imagination; Adyashanti makes this point in the interview at the end of End of Your World.
He hasn't had the experience of being "lost in ego" for years ... but acknowledges than any prediction about the next moment on would just be imagination ... that's it's "not knowable".
That's experiencing here, too; there's truly not interest in not-now ... along with a deeply felt sense of non-attachment to limited me-story ... and very little arising of it at all ... basically the same levels that Adya talks about in that interview ... or that Nisargadatta mentioned:
Untrue thoughts are generated .. and they are seen through and released in what feels kind of like a single, simultaneous movement ... though which Adya still terms "inquiry".
And so:
Sure ... who knows?
(Regarding the future; when it's now, we'll experience it, and we'll know; the future is always a concept, now).
In the meantime, though ... I've seen a couple of examples from you, in this post .. where your perception of "fixed view" either was inaccurate (my case, per my recall of my own experience) or could well have been inaccurate (Wayne's case).
quote:
quote:
I know you will take these comments in a good light, because after all, one of the advantages of being enlightened is that nothing in conceptual form could ever touch the joy, freedom and bliss of pure radiant awareness.
Hm .... "pleasant sentiment" ... "blatant sarcasm" ... or "brilliant English humor" .... one wonders ......
[8D]
PS: Seriously? That's not true at all; that's one of the most mega enlightenment-myths of all (which is why I'm commenting, here).
The full range of human experiencing is enjoyed and lived in enlightenment; the full range.
It's not about escaping "negative" emotions; negative emotions are only negative by definition; if/when they happen, they're simply the experiencing of the moment.
Once again (and I'm loving this term) .... it's about non-division.
Wayne Liquorman tells the story of how, prior to his spiritual path ... if he missed a plane, he'd shout "Godda****!!" (<- I forget forum "profanity parameters", so am erring on the safe side; I have no problem simply writing the full term, or any other).
Once *on* the path, he would wonder what it *meant* that he missed the plane ... "Maybe it's a sign ... from another ..... plane ....".
Now, in enlightenment ... if he misses a plane (you guessed it) ... he shouts "Godda****!!".
quote:
quote:
Very good; I agree ... and would also say that I verify/concur with everything Yogani says, based upon experiencing here .... understanding that I define the "omni" terms differently than you seem to be understanding them ... and will go as far as to guess that Yogani likely defines/experiences omniscience and the rest similar to how I'm defining describing them .... the fullness of awareness is marvelous and infinity ... but infinity, eternity and everything omni .... is the realm of the formless/subjective ... original awareness ...... and not superhuman form.
quote:
By your definition I am already omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. I feel great now, thanks!
quote:
quote:
But seriously, I wonder if you aren't reducing something that is more than simply identification with subjective awareness to... well... identification with subjective awareness. In another thread you said that you believed that the creation of a body of divine light was... well... identification with subjective awareness. Anyone can define terms in any way they want, but if we redefine all our terms to basically mean one thing, and then say: "Look, it's all this one thing", then what have we really accomplished?
Umm .... "Harmony with reality as closely as words can accomplish??"
Seems like a worthwhile accomplishment.
Seriously: here's the deal with that, in my experience ("experiencing here", etc. etc.) ...
What you're calling subjective awareness, I usually term original awareness, or formless awareness ... only because I feel that these terms are more clear than "subjective" ... which some people confuse with "could be one's imagination" (i.e. "Dude, that's like, totally subjective!") ... when the term is used, as ... well ... an object (please see preceding example).
As opposed to the correct definition which is: the one experiencing (i.e. in the sentence "I am going to the store" ... I ... is the subject; in the sentence "I am all this" (the experiencing of the consciousness of Sadashiva, in Kashmir Shaivism ... unbound subjective awarness) ... I ... is the subject.
HERE'S THE REALLY IMPORTANT PART:
Formless awareness IS the very ground of being; there is nothing beyond it; all arises from it now ..... all.
Space, Time; Form (any/all ... Universes, Galaxies, your left knee, an irritable cab driver; a mosquito; the Himalayas; angels, demons, archangels, gods, God, Mickey Mouse, and so on .... *really*).
If I appear to be "dissing" (or at least "discounting") some other views (for instance "further development with respect to the subtle body", or miracles, or siddhis or whatever) ..... I'm actually not (dissing or discounting).
I've just be trying to explain how/why they relate to enlightenment (they don't).
Enlightenment is dropping the story of the conceptual me, including attachment to form, and confusing form with reality.
And so, when one experiences oneself as formless awareness, in conjunction with the experiencing of how, exactly all form arises (I mentioned to TI that I spent quite a bit of deep meditation experiencing ... experiencing/"getting" this).
All traditions speak of it, and symbolize it in different ways.
Most have a three, four or fivefold model, which simply describes the flow from the ground of being (formless awareness) out to manifestation ... and back again.
This happens every moment/perception, every lifetime, etc.
And so: siddhis may well be real, certain types of synergistic, miracle-like circumstances, similar to what TI has described, I've experienced; angels and other non-physical beings may well exist (you and TI say you've experienced them, as do others).
My point was simply: "unity consciousness" as you term it, may or may not be a "breakthrough yet stop along the way", depending upon what, exactly you're terming "unity consciousness".
What I'm terming formless awareness/ground of being is the experiencing of self as the "subject who can never be made an object" as Kashmir Shaivism terms it, and knowing self as the ground of all manifestation ... not in a "woo-hoo" sense ... in a "this is how awareness/being actually is" sense.
Most of what we're discussing here is concept and imagination; even if it's memory of actual experiencing ... it's concept and imagination ... the last stop before physical manifestation ... and the return arc back to infinity/eternity ground-of-being ... which swings back out toward manifestation .... passing into emanation, creation, formation ... and manifestation/action, again.
That's why Yogani speaks of "dialing up" a solar system or a galaxy, because "we're already t/here".
A good example of a symbol outlining exactly what I'm referring to is the well-know six-pointed star of Judaism and Tantric Hinduism (the overlaid triangles symbolize the Heart; the unity of objective and subjective, of manifest and unmanifest ... awareness, in enlightened humanity.
quote:
quote:
We are not going to be able to agree on this now (what is really meant by the terms omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent with regard to the enlightenment process), because there isn't really any way that we could, and it really doesn't matter. Either time will tell, or it won't, but as I say, I don't think it really matters.
Agreed (doesn't really matter).
Reality is what's happening now ..... and it's so easy to become involved in discussions about conceptual items/issues.
I enjoy them, more than most people (*obviously*) .... but they (conceptual discussions), especially, have nothing to do with enlightenment ..... only our own experience has anything to do with enlightenment.
quote:
In the meantime take a look at this from lesson 153:
"So samyama is also cultivation of the outflowing of divine love which expects nothing in return. If we do our samyama that way, in time we will become radiating beacons of divine light floating in the air.
Then who will be able to deny what we human beings are? Who will not want to become super-normal? "[Yogani]
And?
I'm not getting that Yogani is referring to levitation, here .... is that what you're presuming? Or are you just referring to the phrase "super-normal"?
Pure awareness is "a radiating beacon of divine light floating in the air" .... as opposed to anything illegal (breaking the laws of physics .... ) ... that the physical body might do.
And I admit: my fragile little mind may have been warped by Abhinavagupta and friends; *those* guys have the audacity to suggest (as have I; I "cribbed" awareness of this from them ....) ..... that the ashtasiddhis (the "eight perfections" ... levitation, expansion to infinity size, contraction to the size of an atom, and so on ... such as Hanuman the monkey-god is said to have done) ...... are referring to *awareness* .... not to the *physical body*.
No fun at all, those guys ..... but they have this weird way of .... making a lot of sense, somehow ....
It's almost as though they're saying that we *really* are awareness, and not the physical body .... and so:
"The yogi shall have the power to float in the air, and to expand to infinite size ..." ... and so on.
Because that's what awareness can do ... and so, when we come to know we're awareness ... we have those siddhis.
"Hm."
quote:
quote:
The man I met who was experiencing omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience according to the standard dictionary definitions of those terms, was radiating light, and floating in the air. Could just be coincidence?
Physically?
No wires (attached to this gentleman; how about fluorescent lighting)?
No ingestion of interesting substances on your part (prior to this experience)?
(You were) Not dreaming?
(This was) Not during a vision (you were having)?
Just askin' ......
quote:
quote:
One of the areas that interests me, with regards to siddhis and enlightenment, is the fact that Yogani doesn't simply teach people to ignore siddhis. If enlightenment is the process of shifting identification from form to subjective awareness, and that is the whole of it, then why doesn't Yogani simply tell people to ignore siddhis as they come up? After all, their cultivation wouldn't be necessary for enlightenment to come about and could even be a distraction (as you and Wayne have mentioned). There are many lessons in the main lessons, which are about the deliberate cultivation of siddhis.
I need to review the main lessons; I somehow missed the "deliberate cultivation of siddhis" part.
As far as why Yogani doesn't tell people to ignore siddhis .... you'd have to ask him.
I'm pretty sure he strongly advises to ignore *scenery* though .... even to the point that (if I recall correctly) ... "Jesus descends in a flaming chariot, and offers to take you for a ride" ... you gently return to the mantra ... or some such (it involved a flaming chariot as a general example of the "scenery" we are to ignore; I'm a bit fuzzy on the rest of it.)
.... which I kind of take to be saying the *same* thing Wayne and I have been saying, which is:
Get enlightened; then worry about it; if it's important, it'll come up then.
In the meantime (because enlightenment involves dropping the story of being a me, who has experiences of any type ... which involves knowing self as formless awareness) ... *any* focus on experiences or form of *any* type ... whether issues at the office, or attending the creation and destruction of universes ..... is a distraction from the most important awakening-returning in all lifetimes:
Enlightenment itself.
Seriously: you can have the most amazing array of siddhis in meta-galatic ultra-history .... and at the end of the eons .... you're hosed; you're still identified with *matter* .... you're ... still .... DREAMING.
In enlightenment ..... you're free to dream ... but all form is known-lived-living as a lucid dream ... and so, you're free.
That's all; it's not about the real or unreal per se; it's about how the "pieces" fit together (form is subsequent and subsidiary to the formless awareness we actually are ... it extends from this) ... and who/what we actually are (original; not subsequent or subsidiary to anything).
If we were talking about waves instead of people, we'd be talking about knowing self as the wetness permeating the ocean; there's no real "line" at the base of the wave; that's a concept; if the ocean dried out, there would be no waves.
If awareness dried out/died out .... there would be no people, or angels or siddhis or anything.
"Selflessness arises out of the realization
that you are the world and much more as well.
All arises within you and is an expression of you."
~Adyashanti
quote:
quote:
Does Yogani have a siddhi fixation, or does he know something that we don’t about the process of enlightenment?
Yogani would be the best resource to answer that question, I'd say.
quote:
This is probably a question that I should be addressing to Yogani, rather than to you, but I am throwing it in here as food for thought.
And here I thought you were being nice ....
I've never seen Yogani as having any kind of fixation, per se ... and of teaching essentially the same thing that other qualified, non-duality-oriented (in terms of experiencing oneness ... not in terms of "advaita philosophy") instructors of consciousness principles teach:
Practice and inquire; and don't feed the inclination of mind to become distracted by scenery (whether regarding siddhis, miracles, angels, relationships, work, which guru/teacher/cartoon character is wisest/coolest/best looking ..... etc. etc. etc. etc.) .... which approach will help you to know for yourself, rather than to loop in theory and imagination .... because (as Yogani puts it) ... "the guru is in you."
My sense of it, anyway.
It's working out okay for me.
If your sense of it (Yogani's teachings, what they mean, etc.) working out okay for you ... that's all that counts, yes?
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
I'm good with that // will (good-naturedly // actually) take your word for it; I think the inverse has been true in a thread or two in the past .. so I'm happy to remain open-minded, and go with what you're saying here.
One of the main reasons being: if you say "progress is being made" .. hey, the fact you feel that way, is a good, sign (I had a sense that you felt "circling" was taking place, too .... just from a different angle .... or whatever circles have .... ).
There can be both circling (of discussion) and progression (of understanding) both happening at the same time, no?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Enlightenment is real, it can be experienced right now and all you have to do is give up all ideas about being unenlightened", constitutes teaching about enlightenment, and when statements like that are being offered, then some caveats should also be put in place to help protect the reader. You may not agree with that, and that is fine, but I just wanted to make it clear what I was actually saying. It may sound, per this thread, that I am the only person in the world who has these concerns, but then, in the bigger picture, I actually only mention these things very occasionally, (two or three times in the last few years in fact) whereas Yogani has written a whole book about the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough ... though I thought that I had clarified, early on, that I wasn't saying that, alone ... have always experienced practices as essential, and so on ... didn't I?
Yes you did, and I thought we had been over it half a dozen times and that we were both clear on the matter, but then you made another statement about something that I had said that wasn't true (in terms of, I hadn't actually said that), so I thought that maybe it was necessary to clarify (yet again). No worries here, I'm happy to keep clarifying as long as it takes. [:)]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment there was in reference to Wayne's first post in this thread, which seemed to be coming from a place of frustration, per the bad language and the general disparaging remarks. It is of course fine for people to be frustrated and/ or angry, but usually there is a reason behind it, hence my comments about attachment to views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which I would respond: but not necessarily.
Sometimes, there is presumption that enlightenment "should look" a certain way ... which is attachment to view (I'm not saying you're doing this ... it's just that, per above, it sounds like it's at least possible).
Just as an alternate perspective .... I didn't perceive any attachment to view in what Wayne says ... for one, because I experience his exact expression as more of a personality thing (than anything to do with enlightenment; as you may have noticed, personality doesn't dissolve, or even change much, with enlightenment ... it's hard-wired into the body-mind, for the most part). In the same way that I use a crapload of words, for "an enlightened guy" (or for an unenlightened guy ... or for a small-to-midsized country ... )... Wayne "tells it like it is"; neither of which has any bearing on how "enlightened" or not that either of us may be.
A great Adyashanti quote I read today:
"Evaluation of other people’s non-division is not helpful. The only thing that matters is where you are. In any moment, are you experiencing and acting from division, or are you experiencing and acting from oneness? Which is it?”
That sums the whole thing up, quite nicely, I'd say (very seriously).
I wasn't commenting on enlightenment at all there. I wasn't saying that enlightenment should look a certain way. I was commenting on something I have noticed about human behaviour and was saying that when there is a lot of swearing going on and general disparaging remarks it is (almost always in my experience) a symptom of anger and frustration, even if it is occurring on a very subtle level. I was also saying that anger and frustration come about as a result of attachment to form (including views). When attachment is no longer operating as a factor then anger simply doesn't arise. In it's place there is peace and joy.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of weeks ago we were having a discussion in another thread about Sanskrit translation (you may remember) and you were so attached to the belief that one man's definition of a word was right, that it was almost impossible to hold a sensible conversation with you. There were more than a couple of moments where I thought: "this guy is so attached to the idea that his view is right that I might as well just give up the conversation." But if you have moved on from that in the last couple of weeks, and now no longer hold fixed views then that is great and I am very happy for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, Christi, my perspective was exactly the opposite:
It seemed that you held the fixed view that Swami Lakshmanjoo was "simply wrong" (I believe that's a direct quote from you), per your sense that the term "Devas" could not possibly be referring to sensory organs, because this definition was at odds with with the parameters you imagine an accurate description of devas must fall within.
Not at all. What I actually said was that Swami Lakshmanjoo was speculating over a possible interpretation of the word Deva, as used in the Gita and that this could be a useful interpretation. In other words I was saying his interpretation might be right or it might be wrong, and I was exploring the likely-hood that it was in fact what Krishna had meant when he used the word.
See here:
http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=6437#58019
Maybe you skipped over that post?
quote:
I was having a good time; it seemed you basically were, too (I figure if anyone is ever "truly not" .. it's probably best to stop a discussion at that point; goodwill is more important than being relatively "right" or "wrong", I'm guessing we both agree ... though neither of us are too susceptible to "ill will" either, so hey, it's all good.
I was having a great time. [:)]
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you will take these comments in a good light, because after all, one of the advantages of being enlightened is that nothing in conceptual form could ever touch the joy, freedom and bliss of pure radiant awareness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hm .... "pleasant sentiment" ... "blatant sarcasm" ... or "brilliant English humor" .... one wonders ......
No brilliant English humour. [:)] Just truth.
When pure radiant awareness is the abiding condition of consciousness then there is a peace, freedom and joy, which cannot be disturbed by the content of the mind. Whatever arises passes away without leaving a trace. When attachment (tanha) is still present (even on a very subtle level) then we react according to our vasanas (mental tendencies), in which case anger, frustration, resentment or ill-will can still arise.
quote:
In the meantime take a look at this from lesson 153:
"So samyama is also cultivation of the outflowing of divine love which expects nothing in return. If we do our samyama that way, in time we will become radiating beacons of divine light floating in the air.
Then who will be able to deny what we human beings are? Who will not want to become super-normal? "[Yogani]
And?
I'm not getting that Yogani is referring to levitation, here .... is that what you're presuming? Or are you just referring to the phrase "super-normal"?
Pure awareness is "a radiating beacon of divine light floating in the air" .... as opposed to anything illegal (breaking the laws of physics .... ) ... that the physical body might do.
And I admit: my fragile little mind may have been warped by Abhinavagupta and friends; *those* guys have the audacity to suggest (as have I; I "cribbed" awareness of this from them ....) ..... that the ashtasiddhis (the "eight perfections" ... levitation, expansion to infinity size, contraction to the size of an atom, and so on ... such as Hanuman the monkey-god is said to have done) ...... are referring to *awareness* .... not to the *physical body*.
No fun at all, those guys ..... but they have this weird way of .... making a lot of sense, somehow ....
It's almost as though they're saying that we *really* are awareness, and not the physical body .... and so:
"The yogi shall have the power to float in the air, and to expand to infinite size ..." ... and so on.
Because that's what awareness can do ... and so, when we come to know we're awareness ... we have those siddhis.
The reason that I posted that quote from lesson 153 was in terms of reference to siddhis as part of the enlightenment process. I was basically saying that if the whole of the process of enlightenment was about identification with original awareness (I'll use your term) then why would Yogani want us to practice samyama in such a way that we become "beacons of divine light floating in the air". Why would he not want us to practice samyama in such a way that we become identified with original awareness? If you think that "floating in the air" is a good description of original awareness, then O.K. It just doesn't quite sit right for me. I would call it "stretching a definition".
My mentioning of the man I met who was floating in the air and radiating divine light and experiencing omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence was bacause he seemed to fit the description that Yogani gave in that lesson a lot better than "original awareness" does. It didn't involve any "stretching a definition".
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man I met who was experiencing omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience according to the standard dictionary definitions of those terms, was radiating light, and floating in the air. Could just be coincidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physically?
No wires (attached to this gentleman; how about fluorescent lighting)?
No ingestion of interesting substances on your part (prior to this experience)?
(You were) Not dreaming?
(This was) Not during a vision (you were having)?
Just askin' ......
He was in one of the celestial realms (also called upper heavenly realms) and I was there too. So yes, I wasn't asleep, there were no wires involved, no fluorescent lighting (although everything was self-radiant), no drugs etc. [:)]
In the bible it is the stuff that comes after statements like: "And I was taken up into the third heaven and I saw...". And yes, it is called revelation, or vision.
Christi
-
Sometimes it is better to keep visitations a secret; they are the inner manifestation of one's Clear Light Mind. As such, spontaneous. Identified, concepts proliferate. Blessings fade away.
-
Hi Osel,
quote:
Sometimes it is better to keep visitations a secret; they are the inner manifestation of one's Clear Light Mind. As such, spontaneous. Identified, concepts proliferate. Blessings fade away.
Don't worry, blessings have not faded away here and they grow stronger by the day. [:)]
A lot of people do not speak openly about revelation or visions, largely because they would not be believed. But times are changing, and we are entering a more enlightened age where a lot of people are now turning towards the spiritual life, even among householders. So the age of secrecy is coming to an end.
Christi
-
I see it very differently. I changed my name to Adamant Clear Light Mind. [:)]
Some teachings are secret due to their indescribability; some are secret because hidden in plain sight, others just feed the ego.
I would like to share my pure vision of the Adamant Clear Light Mind, where all things appear and disappear, visible to the naked eye; once settled, one is liberated into the wisdom lights. I don't know why I was directed to this teaching, but I was. No one but Vajrasattva and Vajradakini authorized me to teach things things that have been guarded with secrecy. But you are right. The cat is out of the bag. I've been directed to the summit of the Dzogchen teachings. One must have a pure heart and simple mind to see simplicity itself.
Adamant
-
Hi TMS/Konchok/Adamant,
...why all the name changes TMS/Konchok/Adamant?
As to the debate as to what enlightenment is...
I've enjoyed the discussion and all the clever repartee...
Lots of very intelligent, knowledgeable people here...I'm very grateful for all the contributors.
I still don't know what enlightenment is...although I think outpouring divine love 24/7 and contentment is key.
I really don't think it can be verbally defined or articulated...what is the fun and mystery in that?
-
quote:
Originally posted by machart
Hi TMS/Konchok/Adamant,
If the yogi did sh*t gold it had to hurt like a biiiaaatttcchhh!...so it was probably a blessing to return to sh*tting sh*t...
As an aside...why all the name changes TMS/Konchok/Adamant?
As to the debate as to what enlightenment is...
I've enjoyed the discussion and all the clever repartee...
Lots of very intelligent, knowledgeable people here...I'm very grateful for all the contributors.
I still don't know what enlightenment is...although I think outpouring divine love 24/7 is key.
probably will never know...That's OK
Because of all my changes. Some systems divine love is the key. The mind is inseparable from compassion and emptiness. The mind's natural radiance is the key, the door and the vista scene outside. The door leads outside into reality as it is without the gross limits of conceptual and perceptual focus. The radiance is accompanied with knowing, precognition and skills to assist beings. This superknowledge is enlightenment.
But quite simply I would say that enlightenment is no conceptual focus (the themeless, signless, wishless, identitylessness); samsara is conceptual focus. Learning to allow the concepts and perceptions to dissolve into the of mind's natural radiance is enlightenment of the right here and right now, before your very eyes, luminous.
It's very simply a natural function of the mind to return to normal when we stop habitually focusing or placing the mind on this or that. Ultimately the body dissolves into that natural radiance. Or at death, the mind itself does. But once the naturally luminous mind is a known, like seeing your mother's face that you know very well, the circling is over. Birth will never happen again. What happens here is enlightenment.
Adamant
-
Hi Christi,
Just a (truly ....) quick note ... I'll plan to answer in (a less completely outrageous amount of) detail [8D] ... tomorrow:
Wow .... we really *are* getting someplace with this discussion; I wasn't too sure.
I agree with a good majority of things that you said, in your most recent post.
[:)]
Example:
Your mentioned of the "vision" you referred to; I fully get (and have experienced) ... that vision (subtle form) ... does not mean "unreal" or imagination, as the term is usually used.
More later ... but in the meantime:
Thanks very much for this post; good stuff!!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
A great Adyashanti quote I read today:
"Evaluation of other people’s non-division is not helpful. The only thing that matters is where you are. In any moment, are you experiencing and acting from division, or are you experiencing and acting from oneness? Which is it?”
That sums the whole thing up, quite nicely, I'd say (very seriously).
Not for me. How can you believe that stuff?
There is no such thing as acting from oneness. For starters, in order to 'act', one's energy must filter through the construct of the deep silence, intention, thought and then manifestation. In order to manifest, the manifestation must progress through the mental, emotional, etheric, electrical and physical body. By the time the 'act' is realized in the body, it has been divided so many times that Oneness is no longer there. Further the only way the brain realizes action is after it has occured by using memory. Acting from Oneness is a myth. It proves to me that Adyashanti just kind of says anything that dribbles down into his mind at the time.
How can anything that is beyond the mind act from Oneness? At a basic level, everything is already acting from Oneness, just as it is. Everything is divided. There is really no choice on the mundane level. Do you know anyone who can identify a act as 'not coming from oneness'? How would you know? How can you seriously tell someone to not act from a position of division?
This is just more of Adyshanti's babble.
Yup, I'm a nondualist, I act from Oneness. Please ignore my derogatory language and nonsensical statements which I say because if I can't understand them, you shouldn't be able to either.. there's no division here..
When Adyashanti was first posed that question you quoted, by someone in the audience, that person wanted to resolve the question of what to do in a certain given life situation. As if any act could represent Oneness, or be viewed on a level that was free of judgement simply because it was supposedly coming from Oneness. The only type of action that is coming from Oneness would be divine manifestion. And yet, that too would be divided because it would have to conform to natural laws, maybe not all, but enough to make it realizable by the senses.
That would be a manifestation of the Satchidananda, and even then, it is not non-dualism.
Please read this and please pay attention to the Parasiva and the Satchidananda. (from the Hawaiian monks) :)
link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-47.html
quote:
Tuesday
LESSON 324
Form and Formlessness
We must caution each and all not to think of the external mind as God, which would be a self-deception. Man's personality or individuality is not God -- neither is the ego, the intellect or the emotions. Though the unenlightened sometimes make this mistake, I believe you will readily ferret out the difference. Parasiva, the Self God, lies resident at the core of man's existence, far beyond the reach of the external phases of consciousness; yet these exist only because That exists, the timeless, causeless, spaceless God Siva beyond the mind.
The other perfection inherent in the soul of man is Satchidananda -- Being, Consciousness and Bliss. When mind force, thought force and the vrittis, or waves of the mind, are quiescent, the outer mind subsides and the mind of the soul shines forth. We share the mind of God Siva at this superconscious depth of our being. In entering this quiescence, one first encounters a clear white light within the body, but only after sufficient mastery of the mind has been attained through the disciplined and protracted practices of yoga.
Hearing the vina, the mridanga, the tambura and all the psychic sounds is the awakening of the inner body, which, if sadhana is pursued, will finally grow and stabilize, opening the mind to the constant state of Satchidananda, where the holy inner mind of God Siva and our soul are one. I hold that Satchidananda -- the light and consciousness ever permeating form, God in all things and everywhere -- is form, though refined form, to be sure. Satchidananda is pure form, pure consciousness, pure blessedness or bliss, our soul's perfection in form. Parasiva is formless, timeless, causeless, spaceless, as the perfection of our soul beyond form.
Though it is supreme consciousness, Satchidananda is not the ultimate realization, which lies beyond consciousness or mind. This differs from popular interpretations of present-day Vedanta, which makes these two perfections virtually synonymous. Modern Vedanta scholars occasionally describe Satchidananda almost as a state of the intellect, as though the perfected intellect, through knowledge, could attain such depths, as though these depths were but a philosophical premise or collection of beliefs and insights. This is what I call "simplistic Vedanta."
To understand how these two perfections differ, visualize a vast sheath of light which permeates the walls of this monastery and the countryside around us, seeping in and through all particles of matter. The light could well be called formless, penetrating, as it does, all conceivable forms, never static, always changing. Actually, it is amorphous, not formless. Taking this one step farther, suppose there were a "something" so great, so intense in vibration that it could swallow up light as well as the forms it permeates. This cannot be described, but can be called Parasiva
-- the greatest of all of God Siva's perfections to be realized. This, too, can be experienced by the yogi, in nirvikalpa samadhi. Thus, we understand Parasiva as the perfection known in nirvikalpa samadhi, and Satchidananda as the perfection experienced in savikalpa samadhi. By the word formless I do not describe that which can take any form or that which is of no definite shape and size. I mean without form altogether, beyond form, beyond the mind which conceives of form and space, for mind and consciousness, too, are form.
Whoops, there's that nirvikalpa samadhi again.. beyond the mind.
I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that Adyashanti is referring to 'acting as though you are everyone, treat everyone like you would treat yourself, that is the oneness he means. However, this in way resolves any moral dilemnas or ethical problems, because perhaps how I would want to be treated is not how someone else would want to be treated. Nor is this a moral issue. One cannot act from Oneness. Period. He would have been better telling person to act from the feeling in their heart, because that feeling never lies..
Further, why does he use the term "Oneness" which is obviously a spin off and directly related to the term non-duality? This just doesn't make any sense. His whole statement is an impossible suggestion, impossible for anyone to perform or understand, and yet he gets away with saying stuff like that and people believe it.
In the quote above, would you say that Satchidananda is the realization of Oneness or is it Parasiva? It couldn't be Satchidananda because that is not the ultimate realization. Be careful here. The Satchidananda is pure form, pure consciousness, pure blessedness or bliss, our soul's perfection in form. Is that Oneness? Is that the realization that Adyshanti is claiming to produce enlightenemnt and realize Oneness? I would say Parasiva is. So, how does one act from Parasiva? Eh?
Is Adyshanti telling everyone that they should manifest miracles from their Oneness because I think that's the only way that one can act from Oneness. Ludicrous.
quote:
It's about whether or not non-division is the experience; period.
Is there, or is there not, conflict, in experience?
As soon as it is form, it is divided. Every experience has conflict in it. If it is form, it has conflict. It has a dialectically opposed or equal and opposite reaction. Everything lives as it dies. The world of form. Even one tiny thought is a form. A form is divided by it's very nature. More nonsense.
quote:
And so, when one experiences oneself as formless awareness,
If one 'experiences formless awareness' then there is no self to experience because that stat implies that there is no more living body or mind to experience it. When you experience nirvikalpa samadhi, my version where you "die daily" like St. Paul, or the common Vedanta interpretation (even to the monks) where you can remain breathless for hours or days, you are dead. There is no more ego or self. Remember the Parasiva in the quote above?
Do you like Adyashanti because he says anything he likes and gets away with it?
I think the biggest lie that Adyashanti told was when he said that "eventually all practices don't work anymore". He said that they wear off and don't produce results. He told that to a person in the audience that inquired about why he could meditate for so long and not get any results. When I first heard that statement, I believed it at first. But then I started to realize that it was just more of Adya's BS. In one breath Adya had made the AYP practices ineffective. In one breath he cast down all the methods that others have gained true enlightenment with throughout the ages. In one breath he shattered all the knowledge and belief systems I have aquired of practices throughout my lifetime. In one breath he dismissed the power of prayer.
Then I started to think for myself, instead of playing 'sleeping mass sheep animal seeker'. I started examining his teachings carefully. They are so full of holes that now I consider his teachings a waste of time. Personally the best thing he ever did was point to Zen and Nisargadatta as viable teachings. At least those teachings are congruent and closer to truth. Maybe Adya spent too much time ala Zen, where one method is to confuse the mind to the point where it gives up, producing stillness..
Try this experiment, check out Adya's blurb about enlightenment on Youtube, then Eckhart Tolle's, then try Nithyananda and some others. See what I mean? Shouldn't truth be consistent?
I think Adya fits well into here (from the monks again):
quote:
Though it is supreme consciousness, Satchidananda is not the ultimate realization, which lies beyond consciousness or mind. This differs from popular interpretations of present-day Vedanta, which makes these two perfections virtually synonymous.
:)
TI
Truth is where you find it.
-
Christi, Original awareness is the release of all attachments. Once that is complete, when the final remnant of indifference to or non-recognition of the Clear Light of original awareness has faded into the Clear Light of original awareness (usually during deep sleep), then all the siddhis you mentioned pour in suddenly. Simply maintaining the pure vision of the Clear Light, day and night, is sufficient for the attainment of complete omniscience, powers and skills. The path is utter simplicity itself using one's own obvious natural power of ordinary awareness. Beacons of divine light floating in the air is a terribly unskillful complex of ideas that needs to be abandoned.
Adamant Clear Light Mind
-
TI, Oneness is synonymous with nonduality which must be known for oneself as the twelve links of dependent origination, a sort of non-dual togetherness. Only this much elaboration is useful. Understand intentionality, action, etc., etc., from this standpoint. It's nondual, because it is one's own mind. Not in the sense of one, two, three, four. In the sense of not two. Oneness is just a term. Abandon all conceptuality about this and it is your own reflection in space.
Adamant
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Christi, Original awareness is the release of all attachments. Once that is complete, when the final remnant of indifference to or non-recognition of the Clear Light of original awareness has faded into the Clear Light of original awareness (usually during deep sleep), then all the siddhis you mentioned pour in suddenly. Simply maintaining the pure vision of the Clear Light, day and night, is sufficient for the attainment of complete omniscience, powers and skills. The path is utter simplicity itself using one's own obvious natural power of ordinary awareness. Beacons of divine light floating in the air is a terribly unskillful complex of ideas that needs to be abandoned.
Thanks for that ... Hilarious. [:D]
-
Hi Adamant,
p.s.
Someone just contacted me to ask me why I found your post so funny. So just to clarify, it was because the "Beacon of divine light floating in the air" that I was refering to was a Christed being (aka an ascended master). The one thing that Christed beings are not is a "terribly unskillful complex of ideas". They are many beautiful things, but they are definately not that.
[:)]
And just to mention, I don't spend a great deal of time holding on to beacons of divine light floating in the air... but I am grateful for the advice anyway. [:)]
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
p.s.
Someone just contacted me to ask me why I found your post so funny. So just to clarify, it was because the "Beacon of divine light floating in the air" that I was refering to was a Christed being (aka an ascended master). The one thing that Christed beings are not is a "terribly unskillful complex of ideas". They are many beautiful things, but they are definately not that.
[:)]
And just to mention, I don't spend a great deal of time holding on to beacons of divine light floating in the air... but I am grateful for the advice anyway. [:)]
Christi
So what does that make you? Chopped liver? Human existence is the best. And your Christed being, Ascended Master or whatever is just your mind. Cut the dualism at the root with pure vision of the Clear Light, right here and now and ascend master. It's what you already are.
P.S. Visions of masters are a good sign of one's progress. When we come to a profound experience of emptiness, the buddhas, siddhas and dharma protectors swarm around you. What is to be avoided is the one of the four Maras, known as Godly Son, the "I am the chosen one" devil. The four Maras are extremely powerful and a sensitive meditator is easily lost in them. That's why it's better to recognize the being as one's own mind and go back to resting in the Clear Light. What I'm saying may not apply to you Venerable Christi, but this info is meant for everyone.
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
So what does that make you? Chopped liver? Human existence is the best. And your Christed being, Ascended Master or whatever is just your mind. Cut the dualism at the root with pure vision of the Clear Light, right here and now and ascend master. It's what you already are.
I wasn't making any judgement about what is best, human existence or the existence of beings in the higher realms. I also wasn't saying that Christed beings don't exist in Universal mind. Obviously the one I met does or I wouldn't have been able to perceive him.
What I am saying is that it seems possible that when Yogani wrote: "If we do our samyama that way, in time we will become radiating beacons of divine light floating in the air.", he is talking about something more than the realization of Rigpa and Dzogchen, the true nature of Self. And, it could also be that the man (Christed being) I met, had done just that, and that is how he was able to call me up into the third heaven. After all, masters who have realized Dzogchen could not really be called "Beacons of divine light floating in the air", could they?
So we are looking here at something beyond the stage of dropping all ideas and realizing the true nature of the Self. A further stage in the dynamic of awakening for which that process is no longer necessary.
quote:
Cut the dualism at the root with pure vision of the Clear Light, right here and now and ascend master. It's what you already are.
"Christi" is enough, there is no need for any titles. [:)]
Christi
-
Hi Christi, Realization of Dzogchen is a beginning, yes. The fruit is the Body of Light; this is the beacon of light floating in the air Wangdor Rinpoche told of his recent student from California who did just that in the past year or so.
http://kriptodanny.blogspot.com/2009/09/pure-rainbow-body.html
Another possible eventuality is rebirth as a Nirmanakaya. But this transferring is not a goal, it is a side effect. Harboring hope about the future obscures the Clear Light. The goal is right here, right now, the Clear Light. Whatever those beings are is that, unchanging, natural obvious radiance of the mind. Expecting more than that is like searching for a burglar in an empty house. The time is now to recognize the Clear Light and just relax.
Adamant
-
You guys need to relax and read this paragraph several times:
Jigmé Lingpa’s differentiation of the two approaches is based on the distinction, particular to the Instruction Series (man ngag sde) of the Great Perfection, between the samsaric, conceptual mind (sems), and nirvanic, non-conceptual awareness (rig pa). The meditation practices of the Instruction Series found in the Longchen Nyingtig proceed on the basis of this distinction, which comes from the earliest Instruction Series scriptures, the Seventeen Tantras.[21] Therefore it is not surprising that Jigmé Lingpa insists upon the importance of the distinction. He argues that, if the meditator attempts to stop conceptual activity without distinguishing between mind (sems) and awareness (rig pa), the result is a blank indeterminacy (lung ma bstan). In awareness, he argues, conceptualisation is neutralised in a state that is “like a crystal ball”, a simile which points to clarity and vividness, rather than indeterminacy and blankness.[22]
-
Yes. Blank indeterminacy may be a short-lived prelude to unqualified clarity and vividness. The shift to the latter is effected by continuing self-enquiry, which shows that the blank is still a conceptualisation, beyond which there is only pure awareness, no-self=all-self, crystal clarity and vividness, nothing obscuring All-seeing-All.
chinna
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
You guys need to relax and read this paragraph several times:
Jigmé Lingpa’s differentiation of the two approaches is based on the distinction, particular to the Instruction Series (man ngag sde) of the Great Perfection, between the samsaric, conceptual mind (sems), and nirvanic, non-conceptual awareness (rig pa). The meditation practices of the Instruction Series found in the Longchen Nyingtig proceed on the basis of this distinction, which comes from the earliest Instruction Series scriptures, the Seventeen Tantras.[21] Therefore it is not surprising that Jigmé Lingpa insists upon the importance of the distinction. He argues that, if the meditator attempts to stop conceptual activity without distinguishing between mind (sems) and awareness (rig pa), the result is a blank indeterminacy (lung ma bstan). In awareness, he argues, conceptualisation is neutralised in a state that is “like a crystal ball”, a simile which points to clarity and vividness, rather than indeterminacy and blankness.[22]
Hearsay!
What is the point of relying on scholarly authority? Making distinctions is not important. One can be directly introduced to the Clear Light very simply. Sneeze. See the radiance? That's it. This radiance is prior to any question or inquiry. When the mind is defocused long enough, the wisdom lights or nimitta appear. Or one can utilize sunlight, moonlight, candlelight or darkness to allow the effulgence to radiate brightly. When it radiates brightly the nature of all phenomena radiating from the mind becomes obvious. When one floats a thought, it appears vividly; when defocused and viewing the Clear Light, the picture appears like it's negative photo and fades vividly, sound as an echo, sensations fade. Self liberation of all illusory appearance is the natural mode. Slowly this radiance envelopes one's world in extraordinary bliss. In this state one's past karmic debts are purified fast. This was pointed out to me during my Vajrasattva retreat, by Vajrasattva who is the holder of this lineage. I did what my guru asked me to do and prayed hard for the shortest short cut. Manjushrimitra divided the teachings up, but Prahevajra did not. There are three steps; be shown the Clear Light; gain conviction and proceed with inherent confidence. The Tibetans did not keep Uddiyana or Sanskrit words. They translated them. Let's get past what the Tibetans said and cut straight through to the Essence in clear concrete English. So cut off all elaborations about what goes when where. This is it.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Self liberation of all illusory appearance is the natural mode.
Slowly this radiance envelopes one's world in extraordinary bliss.
There are three steps:
Be shown the Clear Light.
Gain conviction.
Proceed with inherent confidence.
Cut straight through to the Essence in clear concrete English.
So cut off all elaborations about what goes when where.
This is it.
Adamant
Adamant,
I would truly like to respond to this.
However, at the moment ....... I am too busy ...........
... Applauding.
[:)]
Thank You.
And the words "truly like to respond" are a figure of speech .... the only real response is this moment ... that we each and all are, now.
The thing I'm noticing most, as "experiencing here" deepens, is:
Awareness *is* the natural state; all of the agitation comes from a made-up square peg that can never fit into the round hole that is all manifestation; when the error-story-that-can-never-fit is allowed to subside ... awareness fits reality like a hand in a glove; they become One, and the None ... because they don't have to be anything ... life is just Living, Unbound.
More than anything, the feeling is one of blissful alignment, harmony .. flow .... very normal; truly natural; utterly beautiful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Coockudoodledoo! The nature of reality fills the mind when searching stops; stressing about the what and where inhibits spontaneous arising of pure pleasure.
Adamant Clear Light Mind
-
In my opinion,
all you need to do is:
A. Find the clarity and vividness of the NOW
B. Give it a name like Self, God etc.
C. Distinguish it from the thought stream
Even Ramana Maharishi said he still had a thought stream. But he said it was a rope pretending to be a snake.
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
In my opinion,
all you need to do is:
A. Find the clarity and vividness of the NOW
B. Give it a name like Self, God etc.
C. Distinguish it from the thought stream
Even Ramana Maharishi said he still had a thought stream. But he said it was a rope pretending to be a snake.
That does not compute. Meep. Meep. A direct perception of the Clear Light vanquishes all opinions. Thought streams, piss streams all stream into the all good nature of the Clear Light Mind. There is not distinctions there. The Clear Light is like Pac Man; it swallows all the ghosts.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
TI, Oneness is synonymous with nonduality which must be known for oneself as the twelve links of dependent origination, a sort of non-dual togetherness. Only this much elaboration is useful. Understand intentionality, action, etc., etc., from this standpoint. It's nondual, because it is one's own mind. Not in the sense of one, two, three, four. In the sense of not two. Oneness is just a term. Abandon all conceptuality about this and it is your own reflection in space.
Adamant
Hi AdamantClearLight :)
I can see now that your new name is not Adam Ant, the punk rocker. I'm really clear on that now. :)
Thank you for sharing your definition of Oneness.
quote:
It's nondual, because it is one's own mind.
Exactly. So how does one choose to act from oneness? Doesn't make sense. What do you think of a teacher that tells someone to act from oneness?
I believe what you have described is the same as Mark Griffin ( http://www.hardlight.org/ ) said when he said, after experiencing turiya, the world and everything in it has just one flavour, one taste.
I look upon this as the world and everything in it is just a cartoon made of paint and I am the paint..
Have you ever experienced nirvikalpa samadhi? If so, for how long?
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Not for me. How can you believe that stuff?
There is no such thing as acting from oneness. For starters, in order to 'act', one's energy must filter through the construct of the deep silence, intention, thought and then manifestation. In order to manifest, the manifestation must progress through the mental, emotional, etheric, electrical and physical body. By the time the 'act' is realized in the body, it has been divided so many times that Oneness is no longer there. Further the only way the brain realizes action is after it has occured by using memory. Acting from Oneness is a myth. It proves to me that Adyashanti just kind of says anything that dribbles down into his mind at the time.
How can anything that is beyond the mind act from Oneness? At a basic level, everything is already acting from Oneness, just as it is. Everything is divided. There is really no choice on the mundane level. Do you know anyone who can identify a act as 'not coming from oneness'? How would you know? How can you seriously tell someone to not act from a position of division?
This is just more of Adyshanti's babble.
Yup, I'm a nondualist, I act from Oneness. Please ignore my derogatory language and nonsensical statements which I say because if I can't understand them, you shouldn't be able to either.. there's no division here..
When Adyashanti was first posed that question you quoted, by someone in the audience, that person wanted to resolve the question of what to do in a certain given life situation. As if any act could represent Oneness, or be viewed on a level that was free of judgement simply because it was supposedly coming from Oneness. The only type of action that is coming from Oneness would be divine manifestion. And yet, that too would be divided because it would have to conform to natural laws, maybe not all, but enough to make it realizable by the senses.
This is the reason that Yogani talks so much about relational self-inquiry. What Adyashanti offers in his satsangs is pretty high end self-inquiry (although he may not call it that). What he is talking about cannot be understood on the level of the mind, it can only be sensed on a higher level.
In silence it can be known, and this is the difference between relational and non-relational self-inquiry. I don't know if you have read Yogani's book on self-inquiry, but if you haven't, you may find it useful. No amount of reasoning on the mental level can come to a realization of that which is beyond thought.
Unfortunately, Adyashanti doesn't put in any warnings to this effect when he gives satsangs and so this kind of confusion can easily arise, which is what a large part of my discussion with Kirtanman early on in this thread was about.
Once when Adyashanti was giving satsang he did say something to the effect of: "If you are ripe, and just about ready to drop from the tree, and the planets are all lined up in the right places, then you might just understand what I am talking about. " [:)]
That's about as close as I have ever heard him get to saying that not everyone is ready for what he is offering.
Of course, with effective spiritual practices, and bringing the mind repeatedly to a place of silence, it is no longer necessary to try and understand what truth is, because it is revealed in that silence. Then advaita isn't even necessary, because it is everywhere and we are that.
Christi
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Hi Christi, Realization of Dzogchen is a beginning, yes. The fruit is the Body of Light; this is the beacon of light floating in the air Wangdor Rinpoche told of his recent student from California who did just that in the past year or so.
That's what I thought. And thanks for the link. There is a beautiful description in the link of someone learning to use the light body for the first time:
“the truth is that sometime ago, after heavy meditation and fasting ..I have managed to disappear as light.And survived coming back....The problem is that the universe around me also proved to be the same light.So that's WHY I started laughing like a mad man while I was in the middle of the forest...or maybe the forest was laughing too?....All I know is I could see thru my hands...and all I could see was rainbow colors ..and the trees also were made of the same stuff as me....I was,and I am..everybody.
I am you,my beloved...my beloved me.
I know for sure was not some mind trick,because I passed my hand thru some tree..and my hand went right thru it..while all the molecules of rainbow body were laughing at me for trying it..that's when I started laughing too....that was the day when I laughed about the notion of death itself.
Even the tree was laughing at me..well.... because the tree was me too...hahahahaha..lol”
Interesting to compare that with something that Sri Karunamai once said:
“It is good to go out in the morning and sit in the sun for a while. At one stage you will be able to leave your physical body inside the hut and go out in your body of light to sit in the sun. That is fine too.”
Things are starting to fall into place: [|)]
“Yoga practices operate on many levels -- physical, mental, emotional, neurological -- and in galaxies of inner ecstatic energy!” [Yogani]
http://www.aypsite.com/plus/11.html
Have you attained the light body now Adamant?
Christi
-
Specifically the Clear Light. It becomes easily recognized when you sneeze, orgasm, feint or dreamless sleep (like when you first drop off). AKA the Mother Clear Light. It is like the sky, radiant, sparkly and vast. It is not awareness or nowness or samadhi or thoughtlessness or anything else.
It is always present in one's consciousness, you just don't recognize it right now. Recognizing it is the Child Clear Light. Remaining in the recognition is the swiftest path. When one's recognition of that is 24/7 and the final indifferent non-recognition dissolves, full enlightenment happens all at once. This is called Child meeting the Mother in the texts. But each time you recognize the Mother Clear Light, the Child meets the Mother. So its just the Clear Light. Ultimately one can attain the Body of Light where one's elements dissolve into the Clear Light. Then life on planet Earth is over, if that's your plan! Dissolve means dissolve. Otherwise you can remain as a buddha indefinitely I suppose.
Awareness, the Now, and any thought dissolves into Clear Light; they are Clear Light. Awareness is not the nature of the mind unless it is Awareness of the Clear Light. Distinguishing thoughts from Rigpa is just a way of introduction to the Clear Light. Thoughts must be recognized as radiance of the Clear Light. One must recognize how one's Clear Light literally radiates one's world. Then one goes from tarnish to purity.
I'm at the stage where I am in constant recognition of the Clear Light when I'm awake and for brief periods when I'm asleep. But I still have dreams. My dreams are auspicious and not negative karmic dreams. I will need to progress further to remain in 24/7 recognition of the Clear Light. With diligence, this can happen very quickly.
Christi, Not dissolved into Clear Light yet. Still typing.
TI, Oneness means not making distinctions; having no preferences. The Clear Light is only evident when we don't focus. We have to de-focus our mind (relax). With focus the mind is Samsara, circling, chasing its tail. When no focus, it is Clear Light. Looked at hardlight.org. Not the same thing. Clear Light does not require kundalini yoga or shaktipat. Yoga is a hindrance, because it's doing something. Clear Light is nondoing, no focus. Shaktipat is not important because one is not adding something new; one is dissolving the old. There is not to add or improve on. The Clear Light is the natural mind. When thoughts and whatnot dissolve into Clear Light, it's blissful as all get out.
It's important not to hope! No focus.
Adamant
-
Well all Dzogchen masters say that you need to distinguish between crystal clear, vivid awareness of the present moment and the thought stream.
I mean, for God's sake, thats the whole meaning of Dzogchen
-
Distinguishing/dividing/analyzing etc etc are all processes of the mind/thought stream....the exact thing you are trying to differentiate between is product of what you must transcend. Seems to me like that would lead one in endless circles.
Love,
Carson[^]
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Well all Dzogchen masters say that you need to distinguish between crystal clear, vivid awareness of the present moment and the thought stream.
I mean, for God's sake, thats the whole meaning of Dzogchen
Yes, perhaps initially. It is part of the introduction to the Clear Light. But really the whole meaning of Dzogchen is the Clear Light, and in that pristine awareness, there are no distinctions. Thoughts are literally consumed by the Clear Light. Contintually distinguishing between thoughts and Clear Light is effort. That's not nonmeditation. There is direct introduction to Clear Light that bypasses observing thoughts. See prev post. Then, thoughts radiate AS Clear Light.
Adamant
-
TI,
P.S. Reconsidering the shaktipat and kundalini part. Remembering having my forehead touched by different masters' foreheads causing intense Clear Light sensations for days. Also kundalini yoga practicing culminate in standing of the precipice of this knowledge. So it doesn't hurt; but one can jump right into Clear Light practice with the right instructions.
-
Carson and adamant,
You NON-conceptually distinguish between crystal clear, vivid awareness of the present moment and the thought stream.
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Christi, Not dissolved into Clear Light yet. Still typing.
Can't be long now.
Good luck! [8D]
-
i would like to make a few comments on satchitanand or enlightenement or clear light which are all synonymous with nirvana/jivan-mukti/nirvikalpa samadhi/kaivayla/chidakasha/turiya/moksha/divine mind/rapture/ascension/salvation/deliverance and liberation.
now there is some debate also between savikalp samadhi vs. nirvikalp. now in my opinion savikalpa samadhi is beholding inner lights whatever color they may be at the forehead or hearing the inner nada/shabda cosmic sound current in the head/crown chakra. and nirvikalp samadhi is constantly being absorbed in inner lights and sounds regardless of being in an immobile state or in a mobile state moving about the world. my opinion also resonates with that of sri yukteswar and paramahansa yogananda (among other gurus as well not just these 2) as they say nirvikalpa samadhi is permanent and there is communion at all times as said in autobiography of a yogi here: "In sabikalpa samadhi the devotee has spiritually progressed to a state of inward divine union, but cannot maintain his cosmic consciousness except in the immobile trance-state. By continuous meditation, he reaches the superior state of nirbikalpa samadhi, where he moves freely in the world and performs his outward duties without any loss of realization."
i would agree with this because in my personal journey in the beginning the lights or sounds would only be there in a quiet room laying on my bed, im not into sitting asanas or postures etc... its just not my scene... but now the sounds are always there, of course i prefer a queit room where i can devote 100% of my attention to them as any yogi would. yogananda or any yogi for that matter didnt/doesn't ever stop sitting in an immobile trance/samadhi, but when they get up from it, it really doesn't make much of a difference. to me that is enlightenement or jivan mukti or satchitananda or nirvikalpa samadhi, always in lights and sounds.
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Carson and adamant,
You NON-conceptually distinguish between crystal clear, vivid awareness of the present moment and the thought stream.
Sure. Except the thought stream is happening in the present moment and is the ornament of that awareness. But beyond that there is the Clear Light which swallows that all up.
-
quote:
Originally posted by michaelangelo7
i would like to make a few comments on satchitanand or enlightenement or clear light which are all synonymous with nirvana/jivan-mukti/nirvikalpa samadhi/kaivayla/chidakasha/turiya/moksha/divine mind/rapture/ascension/salvation/deliverance and liberation.
now there is some debate also between savikalp samadhi vs. nirvikalp. now in my opinion savikalpa samadhi is beholding inner lights whatever color they may be at the forehead or hearing the inner nada/shabda cosmic sound current in the head/crown chakra. and nirvikalp samadhi is constantly being absorbed in inner lights and sounds regardless of being in an immobile state or in a mobile state moving about the world. my opinion also resonates with that of sri yukteswar and paramahansa yogananda (among other gurus as well not just these 2) as they say nirvikalpa samadhi is permanent and there is communion at all times as said in autobiography of a yogi here: "In sabikalpa samadhi the devotee has spiritually progressed to a state of inward divine union, but cannot maintain his cosmic consciousness except in the immobile trance-state. By continuous meditation, he reaches the superior state of nirbikalpa samadhi, where he moves freely in the world and performs his outward duties without any loss of God-realization."
i would agree with this because in my personal journey in the beginning the lights or sounds would only be there in a quiet room laying on my bed, im not into sitting asanas or postures etc... its just not my scene... but now the sounds are always there, of course i prefer a queit room where i can devote 100% of my attention to them as any yogi would. yogananda or any yogi for that matter didnt/doesn't ever stop sitting in an immobile trance/samadhi, but when they get up from it, it really doesn't make much of a difference. to me that is enlightenement or jivan mukti or satchitananda or nirvikalpa samadhi, always in lights and sounds.
I don't believe these are synonymous. I'm not talking about samadhi, concentration or any sort of effort.
Adamant
-
consciousness and presence are one, the only thing that is ever-present is consciousness. it cannot be destroyed, how could god create this wonderful & colorful universe if there is no thought/creative thinking/creative consciousness. some people are mis-understanding the dzogchen teaching of clear light, which is just a term that is synonymous with many other terms. there will always be thought, even when it appears that there is no thinking during your meditations, you reside in the thoughtless-thought or primordial awareness, but there is still awareness or consciousness that can get up and act anytime it wishes. when we do not focus on any object we destroy/get rid of all form and reside in formless awareness or emptiness or clear light or primordial awareness or samadhi or whatever u want to call it. you are doing a mimic of what it was like when there was only the primordial waters or primordial cosmic sound, OM, when there was no creation in the universe except the ethereal cosmic waters. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god." you are removing form to get to your primordial, formless nature, which has been called Chidakasha or Satchidananda by many, meaning: chit or chid means mind, akasha means sky or ether, so sky mind or ethereal mind or formless mind, which is the mind's natural state. and satchitanand means: sat is truth or purity chit is mind ananda is bliss, pure bliss consciousness. this however is not the ultimate reality, but it is however the highest state that humans can get to, most dont ever reach the state of seeing lights or hearing sounds in the crown during meditation, let alone being absorbed in them all hours of the day. Satchitanand occurs on the astral plane in the head/crown chakra with an array of astral lights and astral sounds. there is a higher state and a higher plane above the astral plane, which a few idiots have claimed to have reached. it is called the causal plane, a plane where creator gods reside. if a person made it to there, they would be able to create universes, and seeing how no one can do that..... no one has made it there, im sure there are gods in the astral heavens still baffled by the supreme consciousness causal beings have.
and as a side note i would also like to say that many masters encourage contemplation/thinking while listering to the inner sound current or beholding lights. and some masters particularly the new age ones have the philosophy of eliminating all thoughts and residing in the now, which i don't subscribe to. the primordial awareness is a state of consciousness, thinking doesn't hinder it nor is it a layer or "ornament" on top of the primordial consciousness, it is one and the same, consciousness is aware, can think, and do whatever it wishes. a regular human can do thinking walking etc... a super human or astral being can think, walk, and also do a wide variety of siddhis. and a causal being or creator being can do whatever it wishes including using its awesome thought power to bring universes into existence. thought is never deleted, thought stream, god and consciousness are one, eternal force. you are powerless if u dont use your consciousness to its full potential, you are like a brain dead comatose moron that cant think and thats suppose to be enlightenment?hahahahaha. i dont know where this whole "eliminate all thoughts and reside in the now" bullsh*t came from, but its just that, BS. God is not a consciousness-less or mindless being that cant do anything at all, not move, not think, i dont agree with this new age philosophy on God. God is supreme consciousness, supreme creator, supreme thinker, supreme sustainer, and supreme destroyer, not a nothingness with no mind no thoughts no nothing.
making it to formless awareness or emptiness doesn't mean your free or have made it to God or Self or whatever u want to call it. it means you have chosen to worship the formless space or ether, which is an element of creation, not god. in order to get to God u would have to be on the same level of consciousness that a God is at, which is being able to create the universe, pretty high level of consciousness if u ask me. so how does one evolve one's consciousness to such a supreme state? I HAVE NO CLUE, and i think it's funny that some new age master's claim that they do. ALL meditation occurs in the astral/ethereal body, or physical body if u have not crossed over to the astral plane which has its seat in the head.
-
Michaelangelo, Pay attention! I'm about to teach you the Clear Light which does not come from a teaching I heard or read. I was shown directly...
Pull out yer nose hair... Sneeze. Clear Light. Get the teaching?
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by michaelangelo7
consciousness and presence are one, the only thing that is ever-present is consciousness. it cannot be destroyed, how could god create this wonderful & colorful universe if there is no thought/creative thinking/creative consciousness. some people are mis-understanding the dzogchen teaching of clear light, which is just a term that is synonymous with many other terms. there will always be thought, even when it appears that there is no thinking during your meditations, you reside in the thoughtless-thought or primordial awareness, but there is still awareness or consciousness that can get up and act anytime it wishes. when we do not focus on any object we destroy/get rid of all form and reside in formless awareness or emptiness or clear light or primordial awareness or samadhi or whatever u want to call it. you are doing a mimic of what it was like when there was only the primordial waters or primordial cosmic sound, OM, when there was no creation in the universe except the ethereal cosmic waters. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god." you are removing form to get to your primordial, formless nature, which has been called Chidakasha or Satchidananda by many, meaning: chit or chid means mind, akasha means sky or ether, so sky mind or ethereal mind or formless mind, which is the mind's natural state. and satchitanand means: sat is truth or purity chit is mind ananda is bliss, pure bliss consciousness. this however is not the ultimate reality, but it is however the highest state that humans can get to, most dont ever reach the state of seeing lights or hearing sounds in the crown during meditation, let alone being absorbed in them all hours of the day. Satchitanand occurs on the astral plane in the head/crown chakra with an array of astral lights and astral sounds. there is a higher state and a higher plane above the astral plane, which a few idiots have claimed to have reached. it is called the causal plane, a plane where creator gods reside. if a person made it to there, they would be able to create universes, and seeing how no one can do that..... no one has made it there, im sure there are gods in the astral heavens still baffled by the supreme consciousness causal beings have.
and as a side note i would also like to say that many masters encourage contemplation/thinking while listering to the inner sound current or beholding lights. and some masters particularly the new age ones have the philosophy of eliminating all thoughts and residing in the now, which i don't subscribe to. the primordial awareness is a state of consciousness, thinking doesn't hinder it nor is it a layer or "ornament" on top of the primordial consciousness, it is one and the same, consciousness is aware, can think, and do whatever it wishes. a regular human can do thinking walking etc... a super human or astral being can think, walk, and also do a wide variety of siddhis. and a causal being or creator being can do whatever it wishes including using its awesome thought power to bring universes into existence. thought is never deleted, thought stream, god and consciousness are one, eternal force. you are powerless if u dont use your consciousness to its full potential, you are like a brain dead comatose moron that cant think and thats suppose to be enlightenment?hahahahaha. i dont know where this whole "eliminate all thoughts and reside in the now" bullsh*t came from, but its just that, BS. God is not a consciousness-less or mindless being that cant do anything at all, not move, not think, i dont agree with this new age philosophy on God. God is supreme consciousness, supreme creator, supreme thinker, supreme sustainer, and supreme destroyer, not a nothingness with no mind no thoughts no nothing.
making it to formless awareness or emptiness doesn't mean your free or have made it to God or Self or whatever u want to call it. it means you have chosen to worship the formless space or ether, which is an element of creation, not god. in order to get to God u would have to be on the same level of consciousness that a God is at, which is being able to create the universe, pretty high level of consciousness if u ask me. so how does one evolve one's consciousness to such a supreme state? I HAVE NO CLUE, and i think it's funny that some new age master's claim that they do. the only thing that can come of meditation/yoga is the worshiping of ethereal lights or sounds which could culminate, at the time of death, in the physical body turning into a body of astral light and going to the astral heavens which Prophet Muhammed of the Islamic faith is known to have done, he rode to heaven on a white horse. obviously the white horse is poetic or metaphor for a white vehicle i.e. white beam of light. many eastern practioners have realized the rainbow body or body of astral light and leave this plane behind to go to heaven because they have 100% realized what the astral body is. ALL meditation occurs in the astral/ethereal body, or physical body if u have not crossed over to the astral plane which has its seat in the head.
Too many views. No views.
-
or practice dorje lapchu while connected to a heart monitor
http://people.tribe.net/sahajananda/photos/3f37b06a-925f-4ff5-ad3a-f44b055b6078
resembles carotid massage I think
-
Hi Christi, TI & All,
Regarding the Adyashanti Quote:
"Evaluation of other people’s non-division is not helpful. The only thing that matters is where you are. In any moment, are you experiencing and acting from division, or are you experiencing and acting from oneness? Which is it?”
~Adyashanti
Christi:
While I agree in part with some of your comments (vis a vis relational vs. non-relational inquiry), I don't feel that Adyashanti's teachings are unclear; in fact, Yogani recommends The End Of Your World by Adyashanti,
here (http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=5330&whichpage=3#54210).
However, I do know and agree that readiness affects understanding ... yet in this case, it seems that TI's detailed response emanated primarily from feeling that "oneness" is not a useful term for confict-free experience ... and that's fine, if he feels that way.
TI:
Thanks for your response; I respectfully disagree with your conclusion about "acting from oneness" not being a useful or meaningful statement.
And I don't believe it, by the way (per your statement "how can you believe that stuff?") ... I experience it (non-division, non-conflict) ... and inherently accept "oneness", or "acting from oneness" as a fairly benign way to convey a sense of that experience ... as well as a relatively clear, illustrative term.
Acting from oneness is possible, and for some of us actual.
I realize this may not seem to be so, if you have not experienced this.
I *could* agree with you; what you wrote is one way of looking at it ... but the entire phenomenon of unenlightenment comes from confusing the conceptual with the actual.
It is possible to act from oneness, if all of the divisions you cited are experienced as conceptual and not actual.
We, as human beings, do this all the time ... if we are looking at a map of a country, divided into states or provinces or whatever ... we understand that if we go to the place on the map where a border is .... we won't see a giant physical line of some type.
The same is true for all of the energies and instances you cited.
In thinking mind, these divisions either seem actual, or at least pertinent.
In enlightenment, the wholeness is experienced .... though, admittedly, oneness is just one term for it; there are many.
Anyone, I feel, can at least get a sense of what Adyashanti actually meant, if they are willing:
Mind is inherently divided; it is therefore not a solid reference point for anything ... but especially not for determining non-division (enlightenment).
Non-division simply means "free of conflict" .... which, in feeling/experience ... feels like immersion in the wholeness of the moment; perfect harmony, regardless of content:
"I am what is happening right now", as Wayne Wirs wrote.
Adya's point, and mine (per my sharing of the quote) is/was:
Focusing on the quality/actuality of someone else's enlightenment (non-division; their conflict-free experience, or lack thereof) isn't helpful .... or possible; enlightenment is experienced from the inside ... and the experience is:
It's all inside (the artificial divisions of concept and language are seen/experienced to be artificial, not actual ... hence Adya's use of the term "oneness").
Focus on what someone else is saying, or why they appear to be saying it, etc. .... is a function of a sense of division in subjective mind/experience, and keeps unenlightenment in place.
Enlightenment can only be known in direct experience.
Anything else is either a waste of time .... or a way to open awareness to what's actually real.
The same situation or conversation can go either way ........ how it goes for you, is only up to you (whoever is reading these words right now).
I hope this helps clarify.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by michaelangelo7
the clear light is always there, always there for you to merge in. i get it, i have heard this before but with a different name. it is a concept. putting in no effort gets you no where. it is a lazy man's way of thinking he has made it to clear light or an enlightened state. i think its stupid and you should strive to get to your natural blissful state of satchitananda, the company of lights and sounds more beautiful than any light or music you have encountered on this physical plane is much better than living in a concept or words, live in the reality of bliss. if u do not partake in the divine past times of the astral gods, of beholding lights and sounds that would make even the evilest of men turn into saints, then u are missing out. it is every man's destiny to reach them, to be like a god, not THE GOD, but a god none the less. its either now in this human body or in heaven, might as well get a preview.
Clear Light is not a concept. You are dead wrong. It is spontaneous natural present bliss. By putting some future attainment in front of the bliss of here and now, you are delaying, circling and suffering... Carry on.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
or practice dorje lapchu while connected to a heart monitor
http://people.tribe.net/sahajananda/photos/3f37b06a-925f-4ff5-ad3a-f44b055b6078
resembles carotid massage I think
A little forceful, but my introduction reminded me of playing this game in elem school where we did that too each other and invoke a "head rush." This is right. But you don't need to go so far as to pass out. A little dab'll do ya...
Adamant
-
Hi Michaelangelo and Adamant :)
I'd like to point out that Adamant did say this:
quote:
When the mind is defocused long enough, the wisdom lights or nimitta appear.
There are two main methods to get to the light (probably way more too). One is by letting go, and the effort goes into letting go, not doing, deeply relaxing and becoming a watcher, not a doer. This produces lights or nimittas. A nimitta is a reflection of the light of the light of the self through a quiet and reflective mind. The buddhist technique is to merge into the nimitta and be propelled into one of states of jhanas. However, Adamant did say that if you remain empty, everything will fill you up without effort, so I'm not entirely sure what he would do with a nimitta. ?
The other method is contracting the mind through concentration and focus. Intense extended concentration on one object or form will also produce states of samadhi and the state of samadhi always begins with a light. The effort here is concentration, willpower and intent. This is a better method for someone who has to 'do something', or put their energy into it.
I've tried both methods and both methods work.
Actually, I am at the point where I can see the light in my head all throughout the day if I just focus on that area in my head, and it does not matter what I'm doing at the time.
Both of the methods you are discussing are valid and lead into the light. Don't they?
:)
TI
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
It is like the sky, radiant, sparkly and vast. It is not awareness or nowness or samadhi or thoughtlessness or anything else.
Hi Adamant,
Ultimately this is true (what you wrote, above).
However, I've used each of those terms above, as an indicator to/from clear light .... and not incorrectly.
The apparent paradox (how can both your use, and mine, be correct?) is fairly easy to resolve:
If any of those terms (awareness, nowness, samadhi, etc.) are:
A. Objects in awareness (concepts held in mind)
Or
B. Limited in any way
.... they're not the clear light that you're referring to/from .... or the clear light I'm referring to/from .... including when I did/do so using some of those terms.
Both can be correct ways of expressing, though ultimately yours is more, well, clear.
Clear light is what we are; what all this is.
Writing To Everyone Now ......
Bottom Line:
Clear Light is subjective/self experiencing; it is the true, original self .... the experiencER if you will; the subject who can never be an object .... the formless infinite field that *is* the awareness ... that you can't step farther "back" than ... because it *is* the experiencing ..... "I am what is happening right now."
The emptiness containing the form, the diverse forms of the emptiness; feeling-being the ocean/waves from the inside, yet beyond - containing all, being all.
Yet, more normal-than-normal, as well.
There is not anything that is not it.
Knowing, not-knowing; all it.
It's immersion; not trying to understand from the outside (unenlightenment) ... not transcending the immanent (only), not the here-and-now manifestation, only.
Both - the Adamant and the Clear Light.
(Good user name, Adamant) ..... [:)]
Yet One - the Adamant Clear Light - the Shakti and the Shiva.
All of it.
All of this.
All of us.
Not what we think we are.
What's really here; underneath the thinking; underneath the "form only"; all the way underneath .... including all of this .... arising.
It's the feeling of being in it ... all the way in it; as all of it; immersed, pervasive; utterly free, living, unbound ....... so free, it doesn't even need to be maintained .... attention flows; one moment all of it; the next moment ... a guy writing a post).
And it's all right here.
It was just hiding underneath all those crazy concepts.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
TI, The one with effort is samsara. Do nothing with the lights. They are a release. The concentration hard focus nimittas are useless, bc the view is opposite nature. Don't control.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
It is like the sky, radiant, sparkly and vast. It is not awareness or nowness or samadhi or thoughtlessness or anything else.
Hi Adamant,
Ultimately this is true (what you wrote, above).
However, I've used each of those terms above, as an indicator to/from clear light .... and not incorrectly.
The apparent paradox (how can both your use, and mine, be correct?) is fairly easy to resolve:
If any of those terms (awareness, nowness, samadhi, etc.) are:
A. Objects in awareness (concepts held in mind)
Or
B. Limited in any way
.... they're not the clear light that you're referring to/from .... or the clear light I'm referring to/from .... including when I did/do so using some of those terms.
Both can be correct ways of expressing, though ultimately yours is more, well, clear.
Clear light is what we are; what all this is.
Writing To Everyone Now ......
Bottom Line:
Clear Light is subjective/self experiencing; it is the true, original self .... the experiencER if you will; the subject who can never be an object .... the formless infinite field that *is* the awareness ... that you can't step farther "back" than ... because it *is* the experiencing ..... "I am what is happening right now."
The emptiness containing the form, the diverse forms of the emptiness; feeling-being the ocean/waves from the inside, yet beyond - containing all, being all.
Yet, more normal-than-normal, as well.
There is not anything that is not it.
Knowing, not-knowing; all it.
It's immersion; not trying to understand from the outside (unenlightenment) ... not transcending the immanent (only), not the here-and-now manifestation, only.
Both - the Adamant and the Clear Light.
(Good user name, Adamant) ..... [:)]
Yet One - the Adamant Clear Light - the Shakti and the Shiva.
All of it.
All of this.
All of us.
Not what we think we are.
What's really here; underneath the thinking; underneath the "form only"; all the way underneath .... including all of this .... arising.
It's the feeling of being in it ... all the way in it; as all of it; immersed, pervasive; utterly free, living, unbound ....... so free, it doesn't even need to be maintained .... attention flows; one moment all of it; the next moment ... a guy writing a post).
And it's all right here.
It was just hiding underneath all those crazy concepts.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
Hi Kirtanman, Much respect. I don't disagree with you. But... Cutting off all elaborations being utmost importance. The nature of mind is the Adamant Clear Light, as in light... that's clear... and the mind... the hardest most concrete reality is.
Relax with no focus (especially don't hope) and see it... boom bap bam... concepts, percepts evaporate.
The realizations just happen...
Adamant
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
I don't feel that Adyashanti's teachings are unclear; in fact, Yogani recommends The End Of Your World by Adyashanti,
here (http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=5330&whichpage=3#54210).
You make it seem that Yogani is wholeheartedly embracing Adyashanti's book when he in fact he recommended that book to emc, specifically one chapter, about the yoyo effect.
I don't see this as any kind of endorsement of Adyashanti's teachings, especially when Adya states that "after a while practices don't work anymore". A major component of AYP is practices.
I noticed you didn't comment about that.
On another note, if, as you stated, Adya gave shaktipat to someone and this caused them to be committed to a mental asylum, what does that tell you?
It tells me that Adya didn't know what he was doing, and that there was also no divine presence to protect the victim, nor was there divine presence protecting Adya. Further, if he was enlightened, he should have been able to see it coming. That alone is enough to make anyone seek a different 'teacher'.
Here is more on the subject of kundalini and protection:
from this link: http://www.edgarcayce.org/ps2/kundalini_meditation_J_Van_Auken.html
quote:
If there has been set the mark (mark meaning here the image that is raised by the individual in its imaginative and impulse force) such that it takes the form of the ideal the individual is holding as its standard to be raised to, ...then the individual (or the image) bears the mark of the Lamb, or the Christ, or the Holy One, or the Son, or any of the names we may have given to that which enables the individual to enter THROUGH IT into the very presence of that which is the creative force from within itself -- see?...
Raising then in the inner self that image of the Christ, love of God-Consciousness, is making the body so cleansed as to be barred against all powers that would in any manner hinder.
Notice how “Christ” is given as equivalent to the “love of God-Consciousness.” Seekers from any religion may have love of God-Consciousness. Christ in this perspective is more universal than the religion that possesses that name. Notice also how “love of God-Consciousness” cleanses us of self-interests that may hinder or harm us.
So if his actions are detrimental, why should his words be any different?
:)
TI
-
I put an emphasis on no elaborations, because my transmission from Vajrasattva was based on my ardent, powerful request for the simplest shortest short cut to buddhahood in very short while, like less than a few years, or like right now. My alternative was wait for three year retreat after I retire from my profession. Not gonna work. Solution. Need one. Now...
I was shown something but the clear indication was don't go blabbing on about this; blabbing on is the opposite of what I was about to be shown. Bam. I was shown it. Nonmeditation based on correct vision of the Clear Light, a 24/7 vision maintained doing whatever everyday stuff is going on. The Clear Light vision fades when one thinks too much and gets attached and focuses. One must, as much as possible super-relax into super-no-focus so that the Clear Light is clearly seen and the blissful evaporation of thoughts and objects rolls on a steady course. That way, it becomes so second nature that the Clear Light awareness invades the sleep until it evaporates dreams. Finally, buddhahood.
This is serious s*!&. And now I have to stop talking about it.
Adamant
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Christi:
While I agree in part with some of your comments (vis a vis relational vs. non-relational inquiry), I don't feel that Adyashanti's teachings are unclear; in fact, Yogani recommends The End Of Your World by Adyashanti,
here.
However, I do know and agree that readiness affects understanding ... yet in this case, it seems that TI's detailed response emanated primarily from feeling that "oneness" is not a useful term for confict-free experience ... and that's fine, if he feels that way.
As I understand it, that's what non-relational self-inquiry is. When the mind tries to understand the words that are being used in the inquiry, and then it is too confusing because it can't be understood on the level of the mind, and then there is a whole process of spin-off ideas which ultimately result in the idea that the teacher must be a waste of time, and just saying anything that dribbles into his mouth... etc?
No? [:D]
What would non-relational self-inquiry be if it wasn't that?
Christi
-
Adya is no different than many people who have realized the nature of the mind. He has no psychic powers. Psychic powers come from working directly with the chakras (which are real by the way...where do you think you feel your emotions?).
The truth can be written in one sentence, but he has to write whole books to make money.
The truth is to nonconceptually distinguish between clear/vivid awareness of the NOW and the thoughtstream. See that doesn't fill a book does it?
And although there are no stages in this process (because time literally does not exist as anything else besides a mental concept), people will write whole books on stages just to make a buck.
-
Hi Alwayson,
quote:
Adya is no different than many people who have realized the nature of the mind. He has no psychic powers. Psychic powers come from working directly with the chakras.
He did say once that sometimes when he is parking his car in a car park, he uses his powers to manifest a good spot where he doesn't have to walk too far after parking.
He said it usually works.
Not bad eh? [8D]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGKWnv2mDbU
p.s.
I don't think Adyashanti does write books (although I may be wrong). I think he just talks spontaneously on the nature of truth (satsang). Then someone tape-records the talks, types them out later on a computer and compiles them into book format to be shared with humanity as an act of compassion. That's the usual way with Dharma talks.
-
Yeah it is always a good idea to throw in some stuff from the Secret when in doubt.
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
The truth can be written in one sentence, but he has to write whole books to make money.
The truth is to nonconceptually distinguish between clear/vivid awareness of the NOW and the thoughtstream. See that doesn't fill a book does it?
nonfocus
-
Hi Alwayson,
quote:
Yeah it is always a good idea to throw in some stuff from the Secret when in doubt.
No doubts here... just clear light. [:)]
-
Hi all,
Here is an interesting talk by HamsaYogi on the relationship between siddhis and enlightenmnet as he sees it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJUqr6lL1JY
Christi
-
TI, Important note on the nimitta. Just as one is totally non-focused, completely relaxed and immobile physically, the lights appear. The moment one focuses on them they disappear. By simply gazing relaxed into them without focus, the innate wisdom of one's own mind is revealed.
Adamant
-
I get it[:)]
I just saw your website.
How much are you paying for it per month?
We look alike, except you got a little bit of grey going.
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
TI, Important note on the nimitta. Just as one is totally non-focused, completely relaxed and immobile physically, the lights appear. The moment one focuses on them they disappear. By simply gazing relaxed into them without focus, the innate wisdom of one's own mind is revealed.
Adamant
Hi Adamant :)
Yes, my problem is that I fall in love with the lights. They are so beautiful! I get too excited. The last batch of nimittas were alternating colors. One time a blue. Next time a green. Next red, then golden etc. I have to learn non-reaction. That is one of my goals.
Thanks for the tip.
:)
TI
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Hi Kirtanman, Much respect. I don't disagree with you. But... Cutting off all elaborations being utmost importance. The nature of mind is the Adamant Clear Light, as in light... that's clear... and the mind... the hardest most concrete reality is.
Relax with no focus (especially don't hope) and see it... boom bap bam... concepts, percepts evaporate.
The realizations just happen...
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
Yep - got it - experiencing it, too.
Agree with you fully, here.
[:)]
Much respect to you, too.
It's all about the experiencing ..... only about the experiencing.
Using words (a necessity here, as an online forum), we're simply, as Ramana suggested .... removing the thorn by using a thorn.
[:)]
Unenlightenment is what's artificially created by incorrect ideas in mind.
Enlightenment is just what's real.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
TI, Important note on the nimitta. Just as one is totally non-focused, completely relaxed and immobile physically, the lights appear. The moment one focuses on them they disappear. By simply gazing relaxed into them without focus, the innate wisdom of one's own mind is revealed.
Adamant
Hi Adamant :)
Yes, my problem is that I fall in love with the lights. They are so beautiful! I get too excited. The last batch of nimittas were alternating colors. One time a blue. Next time a green. Next red, then golden etc. I have to learn non-reaction. That is one of my goals.
Thanks for the tip.
:)
TI
no goals; no judgment; no attachment; no future; no hope
in sum
no focus
-
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Hi Kirtanman, Much respect. I don't disagree with you. But... Cutting off all elaborations being utmost importance. The nature of mind is the Adamant Clear Light, as in light... that's clear... and the mind... the hardest most concrete reality is.
Relax with no focus (especially don't hope) and see it... boom bap bam... concepts, percepts evaporate.
The realizations just happen...
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
Yep - got it - experiencing it, too.
Agree with you fully, here.
[:)]
Much respect to you, too.
It's all about the experiencing ..... only about the experiencing.
Using words (a necessity here, as an online forum), we're simply, as Ramana suggested .... removing the thorn by using a thorn.
[:)]
Unenlightenment is what's artificially created by incorrect ideas in mind.
Enlightenment is just what's real.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
If you find a correct idea, kill the thinker if you can find him.
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Hi Kirtanman, Much respect. I don't disagree with you. But... Cutting off all elaborations being utmost importance. The nature of mind is the Adamant Clear Light, as in light... that's clear... and the mind... the hardest most concrete reality is.
Relax with no focus (especially don't hope) and see it... boom bap bam... concepts, percepts evaporate.
The realizations just happen...
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
Yep - got it - experiencing it, too.
Agree with you fully, here.
[:)]
Much respect to you, too.
It's all about the experiencing ..... only about the experiencing.
Using words (a necessity here, as an online forum), we're simply, as Ramana suggested .... removing the thorn by using a thorn.
[:)]
Unenlightenment is what's artificially created by incorrect ideas in mind.
Enlightenment is just what's real.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
If you find a correct idea, kill the thinker if you can find him.
Thanks .... forgot to mention that part!
Or ... my phrasing could have been a bit more clear, as follows:
"Unenlightenment is what's artificially created by incorrect ideas in mind."
Could be better said:
"Unenlightenment is what's artificially created by ideas."
-
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Hi Kirtanman, Much respect. I don't disagree with you. But... Cutting off all elaborations being utmost importance. The nature of mind is the Adamant Clear Light, as in light... that's clear... and the mind... the hardest most concrete reality is.
Relax with no focus (especially don't hope) and see it... boom bap bam... concepts, percepts evaporate.
The realizations just happen...
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
Yep - got it - experiencing it, too.
Agree with you fully, here.
[:)]
Much respect to you, too.
It's all about the experiencing ..... only about the experiencing.
Using words (a necessity here, as an online forum), we're simply, as Ramana suggested .... removing the thorn by using a thorn.
[:)]
Unenlightenment is what's artificially created by incorrect ideas in mind.
Enlightenment is just what's real.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
If you find a correct idea, kill the thinker if you can find him.
Thanks .... forgot to mention that part!
Or ... my phrasing could have been a bit more clear, as follows:
"Unenlightenment is what's artificially created by incorrect ideas in mind."
Could be better said:
"Unenlightenment is what's artificially created by ideas."
Samsara is focus.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi all,
Here is an interesting talk by HamsaYogi on the relationship between siddhis and enlightenmnet as he sees it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJUqr6lL1JY
Christi
Here's a video that Nandhi posted earlier this year, of Siddhar Baba Nataraj, speaking on being Beyond Enlightenment.
I find both the content on the power/energy to be very powerful (and interestingly, a perspective similar to Abhinavagupta's, regarding devas being internal to consciousness, as I outlined in our discussion in the Swami Lakshmanjoo thread).
VIDEO: Siddhar Baba Nataraj on Non-Dual Reality Beyond Enlightenment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay9GsM--Zf8)
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Samsara is focus.
Yes -- though focus is not always samsara.
Confusing focus with reality is samsara.
Samsara chops off part of the focus and calls it "me".
Enlightenment - original awareness - experiences all focus, all diversity, as only itself.
Though, in this experiencing .... focus is more like .... alignment ... flowing with, as opposed to focusing on (which creates separation ... it makes an object where none actually exists ... as well as a subject .... and hence, all the trouble).
-
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Samsara is focus.
Yes -- though focus is not always samsara.
Confusing focus with reality is samsara.
Samsara chops off part of the focus and calls it "me".
Enlightenment - original awareness - experiences all focus, all diversity, as only itself.
Though, in this experiencing .... focus is more like .... alignment ... flowing with, as opposed to focusing on (which creates separation ... it makes an object where none actually exists ... as well as a subject .... and hence, all the trouble).
Samsara is always focus. What you are describing is nonfocus.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
...
He did say once that sometimes when he is parking his car in a car park, he uses his powers to manifest a good spot where he doesn't have to walk too far after parking.
He said it usually works.
Not bad eh? [8D]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGKWnv2mDbU
Hi Christi,
In that video Adyashanti says about manifestation:
quote:
If you believe it, which is the key, then you get one (parking spot)
...
Yes you can throw it out because it is a skill. It has a practical value.
...
Who cares if you can manifest or pay with cold hard cash?
...
But if you see it as something as just practical value or don't hook anything like peace, happiness, well being or any of the light to it, fine. Why not?
...
Don't get suckered in...
...
Somehow, for some reason, that when your consciousness comes into union with the life force of your life and your existence and it's one and you're not trying to get ahead of it or behind it or above it or below it, and you're just one, it releases even more energy into your lifestream and things just, as you mentioned, things just happen, doors open which I personally find much more interesting, to see what the universe is going to manifest for me than to see what I'm going to manifest for me...
This is about waking up, it's about Oneness, it's about realizing the unity of existence in ourself and each other, and then the rest, is you know, you're a free being, you follow your own karmic way with all the rest, with the way you move through life.
Here are my comments:
1) Adya never addresses the important issues there, like using using manifestation to heal others, or destroy enemies. For surely, those are 'practical value' items. He never says anything about whether manifestation can be done regardless of whether or not it is good or evil. He never addresses the issue of continuation of karma even through small manifestations. He does not teach to release your desires, instead he says it's ok to keep stoking your desires with small practical manifestations. Isn't this contrary to the Dharma and contrary to "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all things will be added onto you. ".?
And it is certainly contrary to the Hawaiian monks who say:
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-47.html
quote:
When we become careless in our lower realms of the mind after having reached contemplation, we use that great God-power in a negative way and build great barriers within ourselves that hold us in the lower realms of the mind.
2) Who cares if you manifest or pay with cold hard cash? How do I know if Adya is capable of manifestation? I guess we'll never know because he just doesn't care. How do we know that that is just not a copout? He has skilfully evaded the issue.
If someone were to materialize an emerald out of thin air, it would serve as proof. Sometimes proof is needed to help distinguish charlatans from genuine spiritualists. Sometimes proof is what sets apart real gurus and saints from wanna-bes.
3)Adya says, when your consciousness comes into union with the life force of your life... I thought consciousness was the life force of your life.
Perhaps he is describing consciousness realizing the soul, which is not enlightenment according to the monks. (From the same page):
quote:
The other perfection inherent in the soul of man is Satchidananda -- Being, Consciousness and Bliss. When mind force, thought force and the vrittis, or waves of the mind, are quiescent, the outer mind subsides and the mind of the soul shines forth. We share the mind of God Siva at this superconscious depth of our being. In entering this quiescence, one first encounters a clear white light within the body, but only after sufficient mastery of the mind has been attained through the disciplined and protracted practices of yoga.
...
Though it is supreme consciousness, Satchidananda is not the ultimate realization, which lies beyond consciousness or mind. This differs from popular interpretations of present-day Vedanta, which makes these two perfections virtually synonymous.
4) At the end of Adya's talk, he says
quote:
This is about waking up, it's about Oneness, it's about realizing the unity of existence in ourself and each other, and then the rest, is you know, you're a free being, you follow your own karmic way with all the rest, with the way you move through life.
Does he mean that an enlightened person still has karma? How can that be? Arahants' actions do not incur any karma. Does he mean you can realize Oneness and still have karma? That certainly looks like what he has said. For, isn't karma what holds you back, prevents you from realizing, keeps the veils firmly held in place? Doesn't kundalini help burn karma? Isn't the Dharma about buring karma through proper living and practices?
Here is a reference to burning karma from the Hawaiian monks again:
quote:
But when we strive diligently to perfect devotion, which is bhakti, to perfect service, which is karma yoga, at all times -- twenty-four hours a day the vigil is -- then we release barriers, barriers that we are going to meet perhaps next year or the year after. We burn up and clean up karma that will come even in your next life. And you go from one stage of contemplation and become stable in the next stage of contemplation, until you begin to live on the very brink of the Absolute. And it's on the brink of the Absolute that you can begin to realize that the point of conception is the very apex of creation. You realize all form, and then you realize formlessness.
So you see, out of this simple little talk from Adya, if anyone really examined it closely, they'd come to realize that Adya is full of contradictions, imperfections and his teachings don't make sense.
Or perhaps Adya is saying, he's discovered the soul and it gave him lots of energy, and nothing else matters. Gee, I wonder why that appeals to so many people..
:)
TI
-
If you effortlessly focus on the turn signals in your car audibly (when it is making those noises), that will always throw you into lucid awareness.
Just something I found.
Let the turn signal be your Adya
-
TI, I don't disagree with you. I think Adyashanti appeals to so many people because of the quality of his energy. The words don't really matter. He could talk about parking spaces. He is manifesting a huge following and that's a siddhi. Look into the nature of your jealously and recognize the all-accomplishing wisdom.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
So you see, out of this simple little talk from Adya, if anyone really examined it closely, they'd come to realize that Adya is full of contradictions, imperfections and his teachings don't make sense.
This is true of all teachers, in the final analysis. It's not about the meaning of the words. The meaning of all words is the problem.
Meaning is, ordinarily, a form of seeking and control.
'Meaning' starts with a 'me'. Meaning-seeking and meaning-production are a game of power. The Sat-Guru uses words to liberate from this game, to bring silence, to bring absolute equality, no-difference. The patterns of words and actions used by the Sat-Guru are defined by the inconsistencies and nonsenses of the devotee. There are no decontextualised words which point to the truth. The inconsistencies of the teacher are defined by the disciple. Nisargadatta said one thing one moment, and the opposite the next, depending on the needs of the disciple. Zen does the same, until you get it and realise that the grand and solemn teacher is talking nonsense. For many, there is no great and personal revelation from the teacher. They just get to the point of asking 'why am I sitting in front of this person listening to all this'. At that point, the teaching may have completed its work.
If this is all so, a characteristic of a Sat-Guru might be not about how many people surround him/her, but how few. The Sat-Guru liberates from discipleship. S/he is known in the Heart, as oneself.
Meaning = difference. Meaning is always inconsistent. Hence we never get to the ultimate definition of reality in words, or maths. What we seek = non-dual. The problem is the seeking, the fantasy that we will get there in words, in me-aning, in our world of names and numbers.
See this and the urge to evaluate teachers vanishes. We know when we have met our own teacher. We cannot know about anyone else's choice, any more than we can know why two people fall in love, or how that really works for them.
chinna
-
Hi Kirtanman,
Nice video... thanks for the link.
quote:
Here's a video that Nandhi posted earlier this year, of Siddhar Baba Nataraj, speaking on being Beyond Enlightenment.
I find both the content on the power/energy to be very powerful (and interestingly, a perspective similar to Abhinavagupta's, regarding devas being internal to consciousness, as I outlined in our discussion in the Swami Lakshmanjoo thread).
Yes, all the Devas I have ever met have been internal to consciousness. In fact, I have never seen anything that was not internal to consciousness.
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Here are my comments:
1) Adya never addresses the important issues there, like using manifestation to heal others, or destroy enemies. For surely, those are 'practical value' items. He never says anything about whether manifestation can be done regardless of whether or not it is good or evil. He never addresses the issue of continuation of karma even through small manifestations. He does not teach to release your desires, instead he says it's ok to keep stoking your desires with small practical manifestations. Isn't this contrary to the Dharma and contrary to "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all things will be added onto you. ".?
As I see it, Adya is really pointing to self-realization in that video. He is saying that it is not important if you manifest something, or just hand over some cash and buy it, but what is important is that you don't get hung up on the idea that getting what you want will make you happy. This is quite in line with the Buddha’s teaching and is in fact the essence of the Four Noble Truths. The Buddha didn't tell people not to act in the world, but only to act in the right way (right action, one of the 8 aspects of the Noble eight-fold path).
Yes, Adya doesn't talk about healing, or about destroying your enemies, but that is in line with his overall message which is to look beyond the idea of being someone who is acting in the world, and realize your true nature.
quote:
And it is certainly contrary to the Hawaiian monks who say:
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/res...s_ch-47.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we become careless in our lower realms of the mind after having reached contemplation, we use that great God-power in a negative way and build great barriers within ourselves that hold us in the lower realms of the mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't hear Adya tell anyone to use power in a negative way. [:)]
quote:
2) Who cares if you manifest or pay with cold hard cash? How do I know if Adya is capable of manifestation? I guess we'll never know because he just doesn't care. How do we know that that is just not a copout? He has skilfully evaded the issue.
If someone were to materialize an emerald out of thin air, it would serve as proof. Sometimes proof is needed to help distinguish charlatans from genuine spiritualists. Sometimes proof is what sets apart real gurus and saints from wanna-bes.
I think you are right, it's just not an issue for him. I think, for him, it is more important to point people towards self-realization than to demonstrate siddhis, or not demonstrate siddhis. In fact the demonstration of siddhis could be a distraction to the people that he is trying to help, so it could be counter-productive. Amma felt pressured into performing a siddhi once, and so she did so. She performed a materialization of piasum. After that she said she would never perform another siddhi as it could lead people in the wrong direction. Even so, she went against here word and healed a leaper, which I guess was because she had so much love and compassion that she couldn't restrain herself.
quote:
3)Adya says, when your consciousness comes into union with the life force of your life... I thought consciousness was the life force of your life.
Normally it is not, and that is the whole purpose of yoga.
In Yoga, consciousness is described as Siva, and the life force is Shakti. The life force (shakti) emanates from Siva. In the human body Shakti is said to reside at the base of the spine as kundalini Shakti. Siva resides at the crown chakra as pure bliss consciousness. Through the process of Yoga, Shakti rises through the body to become united with Siva at the crown (and everywhere), and the union of the two is outpouring divine love. So consciousness comes into union with the life force, and that union is divine realization.
quote:
Perhaps he is describing consciousness realizing the soul, which is not enlightenment according to the monks. (From the same page):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other perfection inherent in the soul of man is Satchidananda -- Being, Consciousness and Bliss. When mind force, thought force and the vrittis, or waves of the mind, are quiescent, the outer mind subsides and the mind of the soul shines forth. We share the mind of God Siva at this superconscious depth of our being. In entering this quiescence, one first encounters a clear white light within the body, but only after sufficient mastery of the mind has been attained through the disciplined and protracted practices of yoga.
...
Though it is supreme consciousness, Satchidananda is not the ultimate realization, which lies beyond consciousness or mind. This differs from popular interpretations of present-day Vedanta, which makes these two perfections virtually synonymous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Himalayan monks (cool name by the way [8D]) are describing stages of realization in samadhi there. In very high states of samvikalpa samadhi, the realms of infinite light are encountered which are realms of bliss. Beyond these realms the consciousness enters nirvikalpa samadhi, which is the absolute, beyond even bliss and love, and from which the infinite realms of divine light radiate. Love and bliss come into being with the divine manifestation at this level, and these two levels are almost synonymous as far as the purity of the divine being is concerned. The divine manifestation at this level is satchitananda, and the absolute is beyond that.
But enlightenment, isn't a state (any state) of samadhi. It is a realization beyond even nirvikalpa samadhi, which goes right to the subtlest levels of the core of our being.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is about waking up, it's about Oneness, it's about realizing the unity of existence in ourself and each other, and then the rest, is you know, you're a free being, you follow your own karmic way with all the rest, with the way you move through life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does he mean that an enlightened person still has karma? How can that be? Arahants' actions do not incur any karma. Does he mean you can realize Oneness and still have karma? That certainly looks like what he has said. For, isn't karma what holds you back, prevents you from realizing, keeps the veils firmly held in place? Doesn't kundalini help burn karma? Isn't the Dharma about buring karma through proper living and practices?
As I saw it, in that sentence Adya was saying that the sadhana (that he is teaching) is about the realization of Oneness, and that, with that in mind as the goal of the sadhana, we must move through our life with freedom and in accordance with our karma. I can see how it could be interpreted to mean that once someone has realized oneness they are still under the influence of their karmic formations, but that wouldn't fit with everything else that Adya says about the true nature of freedom.
Christi
-
The only way to monitor karma is to have the divya caksus.
So if you don't have the divya caksus, forget about talking about karma.
-
Hi alwayson,
You may find that karma doesn't have much, if anything to do with the divya caksus. Karma is the process of cause and effect in action which can be observed in the mind by anyone. With the rise of the witness through meditation it becomes easier to see the process of karma and understand how it works.
As we sow, so shall we reap. [:)]
Christi
-
We are already that. Get out of the way.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Christi:
While I agree in part with some of your comments (vis a vis relational vs. non-relational inquiry), I don't feel that Adyashanti's teachings are unclear; in fact, Yogani recommends The End Of Your World by Adyashanti,
here.
However, I do know and agree that readiness affects understanding ... yet in this case, it seems that TI's detailed response emanated primarily from feeling that "oneness" is not a useful term for confict-free experience ... and that's fine, if he feels that way.
As I understand it, that's what non-relational self-inquiry is. When the mind tries to understand the words that are being used in the inquiry, and then it is too confusing because it can't be understood on the level of the mind, and then there is a whole process of spin-off ideas which ultimately result in the idea that the teacher must be a waste of time, and just saying anything that dribbles into his mouth... etc?
No? [:D]
What would non-relational self-inquiry be if it wasn't that?
Christi
Hi Christi,
Good points ... thanks; I agree -- and thanks for the clarification.
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Kirtanman,
Nice video... thanks for the link.
quote:
Here's a video that Nandhi posted earlier this year, of Siddhar Baba Nataraj, speaking on being Beyond Enlightenment.
I find both the content on the power/energy to be very powerful (and interestingly, a perspective similar to Abhinavagupta's, regarding devas being internal to consciousness, as I outlined in our discussion in the Swami Lakshmanjoo thread).
Yes, all the Devas I have ever met have been internal to consciousness. In fact, I have never seen anything that was not internal to consciousness.
Hi Christi,
Me either ...... though I'm pretty sure I may have dreamed that I did!
[:D]
"But seriously" ..... good; good .... we're most certainly on the same page here, so to speak, per your simple statements above .... and I must have *really* misunderstood you in the other thread ... because what you're saying above, is the very point I was making ... or at least intending to make [8D]....in support of Abhinavagupta and Swami Lakshmanjoo originally making that point.
Apologies if I misunderstood you, and/or if I conveyed my points, or theirs, unclearly ..... because that's all I was saying, too:
It literally all occurs within consciousness; there is nothing outside consciousness.
Which is what ALL non-dual teachings, that ego mind can perceive in so many different ways, are ultimately saying:
Oneness Is Reality.
Awareness Experiencing Awareness.
Anything more than this involves attachment to conceptual dividing lines.
Concepts aren't actual.
Neither are dividing lines.
And thanks again, Christi -- the clarification re: relational and non-relational inquiry, and this clarification ..... are both very helpful; much appreciated.
Wholeheartedly,
[:)]
Kirtanman
-
what is non-relational self-inquiry?
Almost nooone does self-inquiry right. I only got it after I got it. It only works in hindsight.
I would say not to waste time with self-inquiry. It does work, but only in hindsight.
-
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
This is true of all teachers, in the final analysis. It's not about the meaning of the words. The meaning of all words is the problem.
See this and the urge to evaluate teachers vanishes. We know when we have met our own teacher. We cannot know about anyone else's choice, any more than we can know why two people fall in love, or how that really works for them.
chinna
Hi Chinna,
Thanks for this; very true.
Words are indicators, and like anything else, the depth with which the words are experienced is limited only by the readiness/willingness of the hearer (/reader).
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
[:)]
One of my favorite Adyashanti quotes is:
"One of these days, you're going to figure out: 'Adya, I need you like I need a hole in the head!!'"
True that; and for that, I thank him; big time! [:)]
My gratitude for Adyashanti goes far beyond the ability of words to express, very literally ... yet/and .... I have no need for him, either.
[:)]
The same is true of Yogani; of Ramana, of Nisargadatta .... of all those, including all of you [:)] .... who have contributed to helping me realize -- I am ever already home.
[:)]
_/\\_
For me, Adyashanti's teachings were part of that which has ultimate value:
Realizing that there's no need for teachings ... or teacher.
... which is applicable once we realize this, of course ... [:)] ... prior to realization, teachings can, and do, serve as an awesomely useful map {AUM}. [:)]
As in: no one awakens in a vacuum; all realization is due to aspects of consciousness who have "gone before", and provided the teachings .... whether in words, via energy, or as silent infinite Self.
And so, paradoxically: while the entire purpose of teachers and teachings is to show they are not needed .... prior to realizing this, they are essential.
The sole purpose of a guru is to show the disciple that guru and disciple are the same ... are One ... are the Self .... that, therefore, they (the guru or teacher) are not needed.
[:)]
Ultimately, all teachings are solely a map to actuality, while such a map is needed.
Words and meaning can be useful tools for communication; they make terrible deities, though.
Literally.
Even "enlightenment" is nothing more than simple reorientation to the actual, via release of concepts .... of the misunderstanding that concepts are connected with actuality.
Once this reorientation has occurred, this concept called enlightenment is released, as well.
There is actually only Self; anything "else" is artificial, conceptual division.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
But enlightenment, isn't a state (any state) of samadhi. It is a realization beyond even nirvikalpa samadhi, which goes right to the subtlest levels of the core of our being.
Hi Christi,
Great post!
Thanks very much!
And (to all, here, in case the following info might be useful) .......
The many (all the divisions of ego consciousness) dissolve into the one (savikalpa samadhi, when the conceptual division of subject-object-perception dissolves).
Then, the one becomes none ..... form dissolves into the emptiness from which it arises and is made of (nirvikalpa samadhi -- "beyond thought constructs" .... beyond all form, all concepts, all mind).
At this point, there can still be a very, very subtle sense of distinction .... there's the feeling of "I am what is happening right now" .... but there's still a sense that "I am" this emptiness .... this awareness .... yet, somehow, there's still some kind of distinction from the "stuff in the awareness" ......... even though it's known/experienced that "all this is my manifestation; manifestation of this that I am".
A slightly different way of saying it (at that level of experiencing) ....
"I am the unborn; the transcendent; the unmanifest" .... manifesting.
There is nothing that is not Self ... yet there is still the subtlest distinction between Self and that which Self is manifesting/doing ... still Shiva *and* Shakti .... the sun *and* its shine; completely awareness .... yet not always completely form/action.
Ultimately, though ...... even this dissolves .....
And just as the many become one ...
And the one becomes none ...
The none becomes ...
All.
Actually.
There is no separation; there is only self.
There is only being "all out" (or "all in" --- same non-difference ... [:)]).
Adyashanti said this, once, long back ("I'm all out.") .... and I didn't have a *clue* as to what he meant!
[:D]
And now, hey ... I'm all out (aka all in).
[:)]
In ego-dream, prior to spirituality/yoga/whatever .... we "are who we think we are" .... dream of individual body/mind are essentially one thing, it seems (to ego-mind, in the dream).
Then "yoga stuff happens" (see above ... and below ... and now see here .... [8D]) ... and there's all this transcendent woo-hoo-ness for a while, it seems.
Then ... there's dropping all the way in ...... no separation, of any kind on any level ...... not because there's metaphysical/supernatural enlightenment ........ but because all separation is a concept.
Diversity and distinction (which are obvious) are not the fullness of actuality ... which is the one self.
Any/all mental evaluation of this is ........ not it.
It must be experienced.
Self is only experiencing now.
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
There are two types of enlightenment
One is realizing the nature of the mind
The other is a mystical enlightenment
-
Well that's two according to people who philosophize. But how could anybody possibly compare different types of enlightenment unless they have experienced both?
I bet there are actually a lot of different kinds. Look how different the paths are for people on this forum.
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
TI, I don't disagree with you. I think Adyashanti appeals to so many people because of the quality of his energy. The words don't really matter. He could talk about parking spaces. He is manifesting a huge following and that's a siddhi. Look into the nature of your jealously and recognize the all-accomplishing wisdom.
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
There is no jealousy there. There is just concern that perhaps many seekers are being mislead into believing they are enlightened when in fact they are not. Also, I personally have no use for his teachings, meditations and writings.
I think Adya appeals to many people because of his back-street language, lack of Dharma or strict teachings/requirements and his maverick attitudes.
And again, as I have previously stated, I spent quite a long time studying Eckhart Tolle before I started studying Adya, and I can see that Adya has taken many words (and book titles) from Tolle's earlier writings. It's big business, I guess..
:)
TI
-
Hi Chinna, :)
Thank you for your words of wisdom. (even though they are just words.. and the context is my whole life). :)
quote:
The inconsistencies of the teacher are defined by the disciple. Nisargadatta said one thing one moment, and the opposite the next, depending on the needs of the disciple.
Yes, I realize this as I have read "I AM That" twice. I love Nisargadatta, even with all the inconsistencies. Nisargadatta said the strangest things, and one must take them in context; he often changed his words based on who he was saying them to (as you have mentioned). Take this one, for example:
"First know your own mind and you will find that the question of other minds does not arise at all, for there are no other people."
To me, this is supporting a unified consciousness idea. Once you get into the realm of spirit/soul, it is all one.
Here is another teaching from Nisargadatta, which is not his usual "Focus on the feeling of "I AM"". :
"Q: What is meditation and what are its uses?
M: As long as you are a beginner certain formalised meditations, or prayers may be good for you. But for a seeker for reality there is only one meditation -- the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts. To be free from thoughts is itself meditation.
Q: How is it done?
M: You begin by letting thoughts flow and watching them. The very observation slows down the mind till it stops altogether. Once the mind is quiet, keep it quiet. Don't get bored with peace, be in it, go deeper into it."
Here is another part of that same book denoting contradiction in what he says and what he does (Nisargadatta prays himself!).:
(M is Nisargadatta, Q is the questioner)
"Q: If worship and prayers are ineffectual why do you worship daily, with songs and music, the image of your Guru!
M: Those who want it, do it. I see no purpose in interfering.
Q: But you take part in it.
M: Yes, it appears so. But why be so concerned with me? Give all your attention to the question: 'What is it that makes me conscious?', until your mind becomes the question itself and cannot think of anything else."
But mostly, I like this one:
"Q: I feel the Yogi did not mean mere steadiness of purpose, resulting in ceaseless pursuit and application. He meant that with will fixed on the goal no pursuit or application are needed. The mere fact of willing attracts its object.
M: Whatever name you give it: will, or steady purpose, or onepointedness of the mind, you come back to earnestness, sincerity, honesty. When you are in dead earnest, you bend every incident, every second of your life to your purpose. You do not waste time and energy on other things. You are totally dedicated, call it will, or love, or plain honesty. We are complex beings, at war within and without. We contradict ourselves all the time, undoing today the work of yesterday. No wonder we are stuck. A little of integrity would make a lot of difference."
quote:
Zen does the same, until you get it and realise that the grand and solemn teacher is talking nonsense. For many, there is no great and personal revelation from the teacher. They just get to the point of asking 'why am I sitting in front of this person listening to all this'. At that point, the teaching may have completed its work.
Is it that the Zen teacher is talking nonsense, or talking in riddles/puzzles specifically designed to cause the mind to circle into an endless loop resulting in mental exhaustion to the point where the mind stops? I heard a favorite Zen practice is to hit the student when s/he is least expecting it, which automatically stops the mind. Zen has great wisdom, designed to stop the mind. Once the student realizes, isn't that when the work is done?
:)
TI
-
Hi Christi :)
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Amma felt pressured into performing a siddhi once, and so she did so. She performed a materialization of piasum. After that she said she would never perform another siddhi as it could lead people in the wrong direction. Even so, she went against here word and healed a leaper, which I guess was because she had so much love and compassion that she couldn't restrain herself.
I saw Amma's video on Youtube where she manifested white liquid in a bowl, must be the same Amma you are talking about. I read that she also sucked the sores of a Leper every day with her mouth until the Leper was healed. Everyone around her thought it was the most disgusting thing they ever saw and begged her to stop..
...
quote:
Karma is the process of cause and effect in action which can be observed in the mind by anyone. With the rise of the witness through meditation it becomes easier to see the process of karma and understand how it works.
As we sow, so shall we reap. [:)]
Christi
Yes, the conventional usage of the term karma is what you've mentioned, but there is also another kind of karma that was pointed out by Mark Griffin. He says that as each thought is created the "I Thought" is created first and then we create the universe based on the "I Thought". This process occurs many millions of times per second. Each thought, as it is created, is created with our karma already built in.
I believe Patanjali also said that thoughts are colored by our latent impressions with are stored deep in the subconscious mind. Interesting concept, isn't it?
:)
TI
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
[:)]
Here are two quotes from the Gospel of Thomas, from "The Secret Teachings of Jesus", that your words made me look up:
"He said, "A person is like a wise fisher who cast a net into the sea, and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisher discovered a fine big fish. So the fisher threw all the little fish back into the sea, and with no hesitation kept the big fish. Whoever has ears to hear ought to listen"
...
"Jesus said, "There was a rich farmer who had a great deal of money. The farmer said, 'I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, pland and fill my storehouses with produce. Then I shall have everything.' These were the plans, but that very night the farmer died. Whoever has ears ought to listen".
Are any of these quotes the preceeding context from which your statement was derived?
quote:
One of my favorite Adyashanti quotes is:
"One of these days, you're going to figure out: 'Adya, I need you like I need a hole in the head!!'"
True that; and for that, I thank him; big time! [:)]
That is my favorite Adyashanti quote too! :)
:)
TI
-
Thanks TI for all the Nisargadatta reminders.
I agree with you about Zen too. The teaching is purposeful nonsense, for sure.
chinna
-
Hi TI,
quote:
I saw Amma's video on Youtube where she manifested white liquid in a bowl, must be the same Amma you are talking about. I read that she also sucked the sores of a Leper every day with her mouth until the Leper was healed. Everyone around her thought it was the most disgusting thing they ever saw and begged her to stop..
Almost the same Amma. I believe that when Amma performed the manifestation, nobody was around with a video camera. It was a while ago in a remote village in India. The youtube video is a re-enactment with an actor playing Amma.
quote:
Yes, the conventional usage of the term karma is what you've mentioned, but there is also another kind of karma that was pointed out by Mark Griffin. He says that as each thought is created the "I Thought" is created first and then we create the universe based on the "I Thought". This process occurs many millions of times per second. Each thought, as it is created, is created with our karma already built in.
I believe Patanjali also said that thoughts are colored by our latent impressions with are stored deep in the subconscious mind. Interesting concept, isn't it?
As I see it, it is not two kinds of karma, but one. When we see an object, the light from the object enters our eye. Then, there is mental recognition of the object (this is a tree, a rock etc.). Then a subtle process of relation happens, which is a colouring of the object according to our latent impressions. This process is simple but subtle and comes in the form: "I like, or I don't like, (this object)". It is a subtle layering of the "I" concept onto manifestation. I believe this is the "I thought" that Mark Griffin is referring to, and these "colourings of the thought self" are the "latent impressions" that Patanjali refers to. The same process of course happens with things seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled or perceived purely with the mind. So we rarely experience reality as it is, pure, unfettered, innocent, pristine (divine).
This process of "colouring" reality with the latent impressions of the "I thought" then creates more latent impressions, which continues the whole karmic process of cause and effect and keeps us trapped in samsara (the cycle of birth and death) and suffering. So the term "action" in the karmic sequence does not have to be an action such as helping an old lady accross the road. It can happen on a very subtle level of the mind.
As I mentioned above, with the rise of the witness through meditation, it becomes easier to see how this process works in action. The most subtle levels of the manifestation of karma can only be seen and eradicated in the highest states of samadhi.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Yes, all the Devas I have ever met have been internal to consciousness. In fact, I have never seen anything that was not internal to consciousness.
Hi Christi,
Me either ...... though I'm pretty sure I may have dreamed that I did!
[:D]
"But seriously" ..... good; good .... we're most certainly on the same page here, so to speak, per your simple statements above .... and I must have *really* misunderstood you in the other thread ... because what you're saying above, is the very point I was making ... or at least intending to make [8D]....in support of Abhinavagupta and Swami Lakshmanjoo originally making that point.
Apologies if I misunderstood you, and/or if I conveyed my points, or theirs, unclearly ..... because that's all I was saying, too:
It literally all occurs within consciousness; there is nothing outside consciousness.
Hi Kirtanman,
Absolutely! [:)]
There is even a description in the Gita where Krishna gives Arjuna a vision of the true nature of the Self and shows him how reality looks from the perspective of cosmic consciousness. In it, Arjuna describes seeing all the Devas appearing inside the cosmic mind. I don't mind quoting it here as it is relevant to the discussion we have been having about unity (universal) consciousness and cosmic (Christ) consciousness in relation to enlightenment:
quote:
"Arjuna said: My illusion is dispelled by Your profound words, that You spoke out of compassion towards me, about the supreme secret of the Self.
O Krishna, I have heard from You in detail about the origin and dissolution of beings, and Your imperishable glory.
O Lord, You are as You have said, yet I wish to see Your divine cosmic form, O Supreme Being.
O Lord, if You think it is possible for me to see this, then O Lord of the yogis, show me Your imperishable Self.
The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, behold My hundreds and thousands of multifarious divine forms of different colors and shapes.
See the Adityas, the Vasus, the Rudras, the Ashvins, and the Maruts. Behold, O Arjuna, many wonders never seen before.
O Arjuna, now behold the entire creation; animate, inanimate, and whatever else you like to see; all at one place in My body.
But, you are not able to see Me with your physical eye; therefore, I give you the divine eye to see My majestic power and glory.
Sanjaya said: O King, having said this; Lord Krishna, the great Lord of (the mystic power of) yoga, revealed His supreme majestic form to Arjuna.
(Arjuna saw the Universal Form of the Lord) with many mouths and eyes, and many visions of marvel, with numerous divine ornaments, and holding divine weapons.
Wearing divine garlands and apparel, anointed with celestial perfumes and ointments, full of all wonders, the limitless God with faces on all sides.
If the splendor of thousands of suns were to blaze forth all at once in the sky, even that would not resemble the splendor of that exalted being.
Arjuna saw the entire universe, divided in many ways, but standing as (all in) One (and One in all) in the body of Krishna, the God of gods.
Then Arjuna, filled with wonder and his hairs standing on end, bowed his head to the Lord and prayed with folded hands.
Arjuna said: O Lord, I see in Your body all the gods and multitude of beings, all sages, celestial serpents, Lord Shiva as well as Lord Brahmaa seated on the lotus.
O Lord of the universe, I see You everywhere with infinite form, with many arms, stomachs, faces, and eyes. Neither do I see the beginning nor the middle nor the end of Your Universal Form.
I see You with Your crown, club, discus; and a mass of radiance, difficult to behold, shining all around with immeasurable brilliance of the sun and the blazing fire.
I believe You are the imperishable, the Supreme to be realized. You are the ultimate resort of the universe. You are the protector of eternal Dharma, and the imperishable primal spirit.
I see You with infinite power, without beginning, middle, or end; with many arms, with the sun and the moon as Your eyes, with Your mouth as a blazing fire whose radiance is scorching all the universe.
The entire space between heaven and earth is pervaded by You alone in all directions. Seeing Your marvelous and terrible form, the three worlds are trembling with fear, O Lord.
These hosts of demigods enter into You. Some with folded hands sing Your names and glories in fear. A multitude of Maharishis and Siddhas hail and adore You with abundant praises.
Rudras, Adityas, Vasus, Saadhyas, Vishwedevas, Ashvins, Maruts, Ushmapas, Gandharvas, Yakshas, Asuras, and Siddhas; they all amazingly gaze at You.
Seeing your infinite form with many mouths, eyes, arms, thighs, feet, stomachs, and many fearful teeth; the worlds are trembling with fear and so do I, O mighty Lord.
Seeing Your great effulgent and various-colored form touching the sky; Your mouth wide open and large shining eyes; I am frightened and find neither peace nor courage, O Krishna.
Seeing Your mouths, with fearful teeth, glowing like fires of cosmic dissolution, I lose my sense of direction and find no comfort. Have mercy on me! O Lord of gods, refuge of the universe. [Bagavad Gita Chapter 11]
http://www.thenazareneway.com/gita_chapter_11.htm
Christi
-
quote:
One of my favorite Adyashanti quotes is:
"One of these days, you're going to figure out: 'Adya, I need you like I need a hole in the head!!'"
LOL. Exactly.
-
Christi, Question. Is Christ, Krishna or Cosmic Consciousness permanent or impermanent?
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Christi, Question. Is Christ, Krishna or Cosmic Consciousness permanent or impermanent?
Adamant
In my experience it is neither permanent nor non-permanent because it is outside of time. Time is something which appears to exist at a certain level within cosmic consciousness. Beyond time it doesn't mean anything to say that something is permanent or not because these are relative terms.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Christi, Question. Is Christ, Krishna or Cosmic Consciousness permanent or impermanent?
Adamant
In my experience it is neither permanent nor non-permanent because it is outside of time. Time is something which appears to exist at a certain level within cosmic consciousness. Beyond time it doesn't mean anything to say that something is permanent or not because these are relative terms.
Christi
Then would these terms also represent that which is neither real nor unreal? Cosmic consciousness is not a relative term?
Adamant
-
Please just
a)find the clarity and vividness of the NOW.
b)Give it a name like Christ/Self/Adyashanti.
c)Then distinguish this from the thought stream, which can only be in a nonconceptual way
The thoughtstream contains the thoughts "I", "mine", "my" which is the ego. It also contains the fictious thoughtforms we call "people". This is the real meaning of Jesus's forgiveness. The thoughtstream also differentiates between diamonds and dirt. Didn't Jesus say something like he doesn't distinguish between dirt and gold? Can anyone give the passage number in the Bible?
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Then would these terms also represent that which is neither real nor unreal?
Yes that's right, beyond both. All terms are relative, but they can point to that which is beyond the relative.
The Buddha once said that his teachings were like dreams, but they were special dreams, because they were dreams which had the power to awaken the dreamer.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
what is non-relational self-inquiry?
Almost nooone does self-inquiry right. I only got it after I got it. It only works in hindsight.
I would say not to waste time with self-inquiry. It does work, but only in hindsight.
Hi Alwayson,
I didn't understand this terminology for quite some time, and then finally "got" it, a few months ago.
It's terminology that Yogani developed, and it's actually very clear/simple, once you understand it (like everything, I suppose. [:)]).
Basically:
Non-relational self inquiry is attempting inquiry with thought/thinking mind ... mentally asking "Who Am I?" .... and getting no results, other than limited thinking.
There's no actual "relating" .... just thinking chasing itself, as always.
Relational self-inquiry, on the other hand ... is when there's enough inner silence that there's a silent witness, observing the thought.
At this stage, inquiring "Who Am I?"/"What Am I, Actually?" .... and then *noticing*, rather than thinking about it .... helps the noticing that true silence is what we actually are .... and that we are not any of the many conditioned thought-forms, appearing in mind (I know you know this; I'm just clarify the terminology).
And so: non-relational self inquiry is attempting inquiry when there's too little inner silence/silent awareness ..,. for the practice to do much/any good, in terms of helping to facilitate realization.
Relational self inquiry is, in one way or another, witnessing thoughts ... and thereby experiencing that thoughts appear in awareness ... and that even when there are no thoughts ... awareness/self are always here, now.
For those of us who are experiencing unitive/original awareness ... this could of course be termed "non-relational" as well ..... but in this case, it's "good non-relational" .... and the awareness/oneness is simply maintained ... either as a practice, or as natural occurs by just being.
For more info on this specific model, as well as Yogani's comments on self inquiry in general, please see AYP Self-Inquiry book and/or related AYP Lessons and forum threads.
And, Alwayson ... my experience was actually somewhat similar: by the time I got that "inquiring" was just a means for put attention on/letting attention rest in .... the experiencing awareness (rather than anything in the thought stream) ... I basically didn't need inquiry, per se ... and prior to that point, it was kind of an exercise in frustration!
[:D]
I hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Kirtanman,
Absolutely! [:)]
There is even a description in the Gita where Krishna gives Arjuna a vision of the true nature of the Self and shows him how reality looks from the perspective of cosmic consciousness.
**
http://www.thenazareneway.com/gita_chapter_11.htm
Christi
Hey Christi,
Thanks for this .... and yes, I'm familiar with it; I've read the Gita a few times, along with a couple of commentaries (including Gandhi's, Eknath Easwaran's, Abhinavagupta's ... and Swami Lakshmanjoo's) ... I just haven't studied it as deeply as I've studied certain other texts (i.e. Shiva Sutras).
For some reason, it seems we just weren't understanding each other, in the other thread (which is fine; it was a good conversation, in any case ... as is this one [:)] ... as are all of 'em ... with everyone ... including the ones that don't involve words; humanity is where the unity comes to know itself ... [:)]) ... because it seems we actually see it the same way.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
[:)]
Here are two quotes from the Gospel of Thomas, from "The Secret Teachings of Jesus", that your words made me look up:
"He said, "A person is like a wise fisher who cast a net into the sea, and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisher discovered a fine big fish. So the fisher threw all the little fish back into the sea, and with no hesitation kept the big fish. Whoever has ears to hear ought to listen"
...
"Jesus said, "There was a rich farmer who had a great deal of money. The farmer said, 'I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, pland and fill my storehouses with produce. Then I shall have everything.' These were the plans, but that very night the farmer died. Whoever has ears ought to listen".
Are any of these quotes the preceeding context from which your statement was derived?
Not specifically; I was just referring to that statement itself:
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Jesus said this a few times in the Bible, too ... it's actually an expression from Judaism, that pre-dates Jesus by quite a bit ... and has corollaries in Hinduism.
It has several layers of meaning, a couple of them being:
1. As always, if someone is blocking the intent of what the teacher/author/whoever is saying with their own thoughts ... they don't have "ears to hear" (i.e. they can't take in the message that the teacher/author/whoever intends to convey).
2. The Upanishads say:
"It is not the ear that hears, but that by which the ear hears, that is Brahman the eternal."
... the point being that the consciousness/awareness/spirit who truly hears the teaching is not the ego-mind; it's thinking blocks teaching; it can't receive teaching .... spirit can receive .... spirit is the one who actually *has* the (true) "ears to hear".
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
"One of these days, you're going to figure out: 'Adya, I need you like I need a hole in the head!!'"
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
That is my favorite Adyashanti quote too! :)
:)
TI
LOL!
I get that!!
[:D]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Always,
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
The truth can be written in one sentence, but he has to write whole books to make money.
The truth is to nonconceptually distinguish between clear/vivid awareness of the NOW and the thoughtstream. See that doesn't fill a book does it?
And although there are no stages in this process (because time literally does not exist as anything else besides a mental concept), people will write whole books on stages just to make a buck.
.... and/or to help others realize.
[:)]
I would guess that every one of us here has enjoyed greater "awareness of awareness" ... of our true nature .... because of words that others have spoken or written.
If writing a book was a good way to just "make money" ..... a lot more of us would be doing it, I'm sure!
[:D]
The perception of authors and teachers is colored largely by where people begin to know about them.
I knew Adya when we'd get literally twenty people at satsang, on a slow week; we met at an Odd Fellows Hall, in Mt. View, California ... it was like an echo-y old gym. Twenty people is two rows of folding chairs ... five on each side ... though some people sat on the floor. We all helped set them up .... we all helped put them away.
This was in 2003/2004 .... and Adyashanti started teaching in 1996. He's said there were multiple times when satsang was .... *him*. He'd set up a few chairs ... sit there for an hour ... and if nobody showed ... hey, it was still satsang.
For a number of years *everything* for the sangha was done by Adya and Mukti alone; everything ..... flyers, phones, satsangs, managing retreates, duplicating tapes, dokusan (1-on-1 meetings), finances, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Much of that time, they were both working (he was in the corporate world for a while, and then with his dad's machine shop; she's an acupuncturist).
Hardly anyone outside of the Bay Area had ever even heard of him, until (I think it's called) True Meditation came out ... and even then ... the spiritual market is a lot smaller than many people realize .... and the vast majority of income, when I knew anything about it ... was rolled back into the Sangha, and didn't go to Adya and Mukti, personally.
For a long time, the official sangha photographer was Adya's dad, Larry (you know .... "Larryshanti" .... [:D]), before his parents moved from the Bay Area in (I think it was) 2006.
Adya and Mukti (his wife), lived in an apartment almost the whole time I hung out with them//did satsang with them; he didn't get a house until maybe three years ago ... and it's a very modest house.
I have a friend in California who was part of Adya's weekly poker game; I volunteered at their office in Los Gatos, which was *small*, it only had two rooms; Adya and Mukti shared a small office, and the rest was a combination tape-labeling "production line"/mail order room/reception desk; I visited their newer office, not a lot larger ... right before I moved from California ... and it was right around the corner from Happy Hound ... Adya's favorite hot dog place.
Part of volunteering was sending out the books, CDs and DVDs that people ordered .... and they really didn't sell that many.
And none of that matters, of course .... the externals could be identical for someone "in it for the money" .... and, Adya is starting to "get bigger" now, per his affiliation with Sounds True.
And none of this is said to "defend" Adya; he doesn't need some defending ... more just a bit of a perspective check.
It's easy to make "pass off" comments about people being "in it for the money" .... or writing books just to make a buck, or whatever.
The books are just the media .... just like the words on this forum are the media .... and I don't know of a better use of money that actually or potentially uplifting consciousness.
Simply Put: People like Yogani, and Adyashanti and Tolle actually work their butts off, and usually for quite a long time, if not always ... before there's any "big revenue" .... and if/when there is, it's often put back into the promotion of the teaching ... and not received personally by the teacher or author.
And whether or not we agree with what a given teacher is teaching ... I'm pretty sure we can all actually appreciate their sincere efforts, in promoting the dharma (by any name).
I used to see Adya at least three times a week for a couple of hours at a time ... sometimes more, for a period of three years, or so .... and I've never seen him do/say/be anything other than kind, helpful and utterly authentic.
Adya and Mukti are just regular people; regular people who *could* have been making big bucks, much more comfortably than they were, for a long time, doing something (they were scraping in Silicon Valley, when Silicon Valley was *booming*) .... and they've dedicated their lives to helping the rest of us.
You may not agree with how they do it .... but I'm guessing you can respect them and their efforts, if you stop seeing them any certain way ... and just let what I've written sink in a little.
That doesn't mean anyone who "doesn't resonate" with Adya is wrong in any way .... again ..... purely a perspective check (the intent of which, as with anything I say: to help get limited mind out of the way .... and any time we can realize that maybe any presumption isn't the full story ... the opportunity for that to happen at least cracks open, just a little).
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Then would these terms also represent that which is neither real nor unreal?
Yes that's right, beyond both. All terms are relative, but they can point to that which is beyond the relative.
The Buddha once said that his teachings were like dreams, but they were special dreams, because they were dreams which had the power to awaken the dreamer.
Christi
Really? 'cause I can't find where the Buddha talks about Cosmic Consciousness.
Adamant
-
Kirtanman,
Even if you see the Sambhogakaya sitting under a tree, you have no interest in it, because you have realized the nature of the mind yourself. Please read Flight of the Garuda everyone.
Adyashanti/Self/Christ/Buddha is the nature of the mind. Maybe not Christ. Still confused about whether he even lived LOL.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
...
As I see it, it is not two kinds of karma, but one. When we see an object, the light from the object enters our eye. Then, there is mental recognition of the object (this is a tree, a rock etc.). Then a subtle process of relation happens, which is a colouring of the object according to our latent impressions.
...
Hi Christi :)
I agree with that definition too.
How about this one? What if we change the order of creation?
By the time you physically see the object, it is too late, for you have already created it based on your karma.
When a normal person creates a rock, it has certain characteristics like hardness, weight, dimension, texture, color etc and it would hurt if someone through it at you.
When a unity-consciousness-enlightened person creates a rock, the rock has the normal characteristics but it also contains spirit and a state of being joined to everthing else. But I think it would still hurt if someone threw it at you but in a loving/good way.
When a guru, rishi, arahant creates a rock, the rock manifests as pure consciousness therefore the guru/rishi/arahant can pass his/her hand through it, dematerialize it, change it's size or even transport it to the top of the Himalayan mountains.. There is no karma there to limit the initial creation. Further, it would not hurt if someone through that rock at the guru/rishi/arahant because, being part of the rock and having superior control of the forces of nature, the guru/rishi/arahant could change the mass of the object in a blink of an eye, or even make it pass right through them.
See what I mean? Karma is the rule-base by which we manifest our existence. Karma is the stickiness which holds our particular manifestation of the universe together. Karma is one of the ingredients in every thought.
:)
TI
-
Hi Christi and Kirtanman :)
I found a document that states that Oneness is an illusion and that there is something beyond, yet to be achieved.
Quote
EDJI:
All that I am telling you is concepts, causal body, subtle, etc.
They correspond to different type of knowing or not knowing which are universal.
Right now you are in knowing oneness, but that is illusion. Still you have you know it to go beyond it.
Next comes becoming totally stupid--letting go of knowing and awareness. It often feels like death--and it is death to the I Am consciousness. But you have to get used to being nothing. Now you are getting acquainted with the nothingness of the Void, but a deeper nothingness means only darkness and not knowing.
You can feel what it is like--at least for me--by sitting in Padmasana, and letting your consciousness leave your head and go downward into your body into the belly. Focus your mind in your belly. Deep sleep is another similar state.
At some point, you should experience a "dropping" of your conscious center to the belly, and just before it drops, it will feel like your brain is becoming hard and dense as a rock and your awareness of luminous consciousness will disappear. You will pass through a state like sleep where there is nothing at all. There is no you there. No consciousness, no experience.
After you mind drops into your belly, you will instantly become one with everything. All the world will be no different from you. There will be no division between your body and the world. The body disappears and you are the world in total Samadhi. This is your "glimpse" state carried to the ultimate end.
That brief period when the mind is dropping, is the start of forgetfulness that you will need to repeatedly experience. The apparent you passes through it, from one state of knowing consciousness, to knowing nothing, and then perfect Samadhi with everything. You know it as a memory of the passage.
This stage is very important. It must be lived in everyday life too: knowing nothing, not having an opinion or idea. It is one way the world you dwell in is destroyed and transcended.
You are having great fun now in consciousness and I don't want to stop it. Just know it is imaginational, not real. Neither is fogetfulness. No state of body is real. It is a function of you, but no more real than a dream.
By the way, anything said about dropping the center of consciousness to the belly, is also true about that center dropping to the heart. It is just that the Zen way I practiced emphasized the belly rather than the heart.
End Quote
It is from a post by xsmail108 posted in the Jnana Yoga/Self-Inquiry - Advaita (Non-Duality) folder.
If you could find the time to read that discussion I would be very curious as to what your analysis of it would be.
This is a link to the full discussion called:
"Self Knowledge and Liberation --Advaita for Yogis-- Parts I and II, Dialogues between Edward Muzika and Rajiv Kapur".
http://itisnotreal.com/Self-Knowledge%20&%20Liberation-Dialogues.pdf
Thanks.
:)
TI
-
The Buddhism discussion portion of this thread has been moved to a new thread called Buddhism & Consciousness (http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=6809) in the Other Systems section.
AYP Moderators
-
Ahh...I'm glad the moderator brought this thread back in line. What I have noticed is that many of the posters to this thread have been focusing on what happens AFTER enlightenment (that or arguing exactly WHAT IS enlightenment).
The way I see the awakening of consciousness though, is like an hourglass. Each grain of sand represents a person. The grains in the upper portion represent people who have not seen through (dis-identified with) their personal self. Those in the bottom portion are those who have. I call people at the bottom "enlightened" but I understand that many of you have a different definition of this term.
What is important though, is in order to get to the bottom portion of the hourglass, you have to drop the personal self. The ego is just way too fat to fit through the neck. [:)] This is similar to the biblical saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. But I digress...
Once you drop the personal self, once you fall to the bottom of the hourglass, then you are free to pursue whatever "you" desire. You may decide to teach. You may decide to pursue the cessation of all thoughts. You may decide to merge into the formlessness forever. You may decide to drive a taxicab. You may decide to become a hermit and retreat to a cave. But the point I'm trying to make is, before you can "drop through the neck of the hourglass," you have to drop the personal self.
Most posters on this thread have been talking about what it is like at the bottom of the glass (via quotes from mostly dead people), but they seem to be overlooking what it will take for themselves to get there. I suspect, deep in their unconscious, there is a powerful desire to circumvent the the neck of the hourglass. To circumvent dropping the ego. If you succumb to that desire ("I can THINK my way to enlightenment"), you'll waste years and years of your life. I sure did. About thirty of them.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
-
Hi Wayne,
Good points.
Adamant
-
"This is similar to the biblical saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. But I digress..."
Not to take away from Wayne's post because it was great.
But this was a mis-translation. Many of the early translations were done by people who weren't scholars. If you see George Lamsa's translation directly from Aramaic of the Pesh*tta, all three mentions of this phrase in Matthew, Mark, and Luke should have been "It is easier for a ROPE to pass through the eye of a needle. . .".
This makes more sense. The word for camel and rope was the same, to be determined by context.
Since a rope is similar to thread, the reader would know they meant rope.
-
Dropping ego. There is a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on. Who drops the ego? What ego?
There are pristine and simple methods to go straight to Clear Light Mind where all illusions reveal their own invisible clarity.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Most posters on this thread have been talking about what it is like at the bottom of the glass (via quotes from mostly dead people), but they seem to be overlooking what it will take for themselves to get there. I suspect, deep in their unconscious, there is a powerful desire to circumvent the the neck of the hourglass. To circumvent dropping the ego. If you succumb to that desire ("I can THINK my way to enlightenment"), you'll waste years and years of your life. I sure did. About thirty of them.
Anyway, I hope this helps.
Thanks, Wayne.
Agreed, enthusiastically.
[:)]
If there's a direction to this, it's utter emptying, utter opening, utter release.
You can't bring anything with you ...... not even you.
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Kirtanman,
Even if you see the Sambhogakaya sitting under a tree, you have no interest in it, because you have realized the nature of the mind yourself. Please read Flight of the Garuda everyone.
Hi AlwaysOn,
I get what you mean by that statement .... but I'm not sure why you're saying it to me (apparently in response to something I said .... I'm just not sure what).
Please clarify, if you don't mind.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hey All,
Wayne (Wirs) uploaded a couple of videos of himself, describing enlightenment, his experiences, and some of the pitfalls he experienced.
Check them out here (http://waynewirs.com/videos/).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Hey All,
Wayne (Wirs) uploaded a couple of videos of himself, describing enlightenment, his experiences, and some of the pitfalls he experienced.
Check them out here (http://waynewirs.com/videos/).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
Hey Kirtanman and Wayne :)
Thank you for pointing the videos out, and Wayne, thankyou for making them.
It is so nice to talk to egoless people because I know that you will not be offended by my persistence or discoveries. :)
I still have a problem with that definition of enlightenment, actually several problems. That is not the kind of enlightenment I am seeking. I don't even think I would call that enlightenment as you may well have guessed by reading my previous posts. I think it is a step in the right direction and certainly a milestone worthy of praise, but not the whole picture.
To recapitulate, this form of enlightenment consists of disidentifying with the ego and the small self, it produces no siddhis, human thought is still present and the person is still affected by those thoughts (just for shorter periods of time), emotions are more vivid, lust and hunger still exist, there is no ability to manifest form(s), there is a sense of a common divine unity consciousness and a feeling of 'being one with everything'. It seems to be a mild state of persistent satori, to me or at least an indication that person has acheived one of the higher states of consciousness, but not the highest.
The book "Merging With Siva" book by Parasivah Darsana
Dayitvam contains a chapter called "The Responsibility of Enlightenment". I tend to believe that the author of this book truly knows what enlightenment is. This is the first book that I've ever read that seems to have a handle on kundalini, the light, Advaita, enlightenment and many interesting points that make perfect sense to me.
For example, in this paragraph, the process to attain enlightenment is to enter into samadhi over and over again, which, according to this book, is merging with the light at the top of the head:
quote:
When a beginning devotee is going up the path, he is spontaneously superconscious now and again. After his first samadhi, he has realized that he has had longer periods of superconsciousness. After his second samadhi, he will be more and more aware of the superconscious mind, and after the next samadhi, he will be even more and more aware of the superconscious mind. However, each will unfold the superconscious mind and superconscious possibilities, powers, etc., differently than another, due to the fact that all have different backgrounds, personalities and such; for though he realizes the Self, the entirety of the basic nature does not change. However, his understanding of his own control of his tendencies, the overall control that he has, and his ability to mold his own life -- that starts a process which transforms him gradually and increasingly as he becomes more and more familiar with the laws of going into and out of nirvikalpa samadhi.
Therefore, isn't a prerequisite of becoming enlightened the ability to enter nirvikalpa samadhi at will? This is not mentioned in your definition of enlightenment and Adya did say "nivikalpa samadhi, big deal".
In this next quote, the author addresses the siddhis or powers ( I guess only you know if you have extra-sensory powers). Also, it makes me wonder why certain western spiritual teachers lack the power to bring others into self-realization:
quote:
What must be really sought after, in order for one as a Self-Realized person to fulfill his destiny of bringing others into Self Realization, is a pure samadhi which will keep the pure teachings of advaita yoga alive on the Earth through the sannyasins. Everything on Earth comes through people. Everything of advanced knowledge has come through people. Self Realization is the pure teachings of yoga attained on the Earth through people who talk, breathe, live just like the Self-Realized soul does.
If he goes into nirvikalpa samadhi and becomes ramified in the psychic powers that come after samadhi, after his first samadhi, his second samadhi, his third samadhi, he will become more intense and will realize new possibilities within himself. If he remains on those planes of the phenomena of the occultism of the mind, then he gains new and fascinating powers of the mechanism of the mind, but he loses the power to bring others along the path into samadhi. If the renunciate maintains a clean samadhi and comes back into the mind, he realizes he has had some extrasensory perceptions, and he does not use them. He does not use them at all unless, of course, he uses them quite naturally, just as naturally as he would enjoy a meal, but he does not dwell on supernatural powers as anything special. He is at every point in time just who he is.
What the renunciate is taught to dwell on would be the next time and the next time he would be going into samadhi. Then he awakens a strong current within himself that can bring others into samadhi. By dropping off unessential powers, he gains one great power. That is the one great power that those who have realized the Self want, the power to bring others into Self Realization. You can only do that by having first attained a pure Self Realization yourself and going into samadhi again and again and again. Remember, the sannyasin's destiny is this: having realized the Self, bring others into the pure realization of the Self, and teach other sannyasins to go into samadhi and come out with a well-balanced mind, without deviating one way or another on the psychic planes.
Here is mention of the light. I bring this up because the characteristic to identify enlightenment is seeing that light 24 hours a day. Only you would know if this is your experience.:
quote:
After his first nirvikalpa samadhi, the renunciate'sconcentration and his practice of concentration should be easier. His first step in practicing samadhi would be to concentrate upon one physical object, that is if he cannot see his inner light. And if his mind is confused, he won't be able to see the inner light, like before he went into his first samadhi. Only after he has gone into samadhi many, many, many times, where his whole body becomes filled with light, will he then see his inner light all the time, twenty-four hours a day. But at first he won't. He will have his first breakthrough, but he won't see the light all the time.
...
The light, really, is the friction of the superconscious mind against the conscious and subconscious mind. In my way of looking at it, it is an electrical friction. The odic forces and the actinic forces merging causes light and sound.
So, when he sees this brilliant light right in his head -- more brilliant than he has ever seen, intensified brilliance -- he tries to find the center of it. When he finds the center of it, again trying to open up that light like a camera lens, he will then come into a state of consciousness called Satchidananda, a state of pure consciousness, a state of pure bliss, savikalpa samadhi. Here he won't be in a brilliant light anymore. Above him it will look like he is looking way up in the sky, into outer space, and the color of it will be a whitish blue. That will be the akasha he will be in.
Here is mention of manifestation and the power to create worlds. Please note that it does say that this is undesirable, however it does indicate that that capacity does exist and it also indicates that these are the signposts along the path ( I guess Adya must have parking lots manifested in his head :) ):
quote:
In the akasha, he would be able to go into all sorts of psychic phenomena. We don't want that. We don't want to utilize the akasha in that way, because then we cause the growth of gross matter in the subconscious mind, which is capable of imprinting into the akasha things that we want to happen. Then we could go in the akasha and see them. We will see those forms change shape from what we have, from our own subconscious, imprinted in the subconscious. Then, through the power of the light, it takes form in the akasha, and we can have a little world of our own going around on the inside, and that is called psychism or occultism. We don't want that. Nor do we want to tune in with anybody else who is also in the akasha, because that leads us away from the purity of yoga.
In this quote it indicates that there are several levels of consciousness in between the first step (light) and the last step. If a person does not reach the highest step, this presents many problems. Also, this text indicates that the sushumna is at the top of the head, it does not end at or protrude from the brow. I wonder what the consequences of "not knowing these instructions" is:
quote:
As we have previously studied, there are seven different states in the superconscious mind, seven different states and usages. The very first is the light. And the pure consciousness state that we just discussed is the seventh state. All the others we want to avoid. It is not that it wouldn't be possible to get into them and develop them, but we want to definitely avoid them, because they are, shall we say, deterrents to the purities in the Self. So, we shall avoid them by going from basic inner light to a more intense light and popping out into a pure state of consciousness. The sannyasin will still have an overall consciousness of the physical body. As a matter of fact, when he is looking down at the physical body, it might just appear like a shadow to him. It is not advisable for him to look down at the physical body in consciousness, for that will lead him down into the sixth or fifth plane of consciousness, and we don't want to be there in the superconscious. Then other things will intervene, and he won't achieve the samadhi. He will have to come out and start over again. So, these investigations we want to avoid, because they are not necessary, ever, though they are not impossible. When he is in his pure state of consciousness, then he has to look for the continuation of the kundalini force or, shall we say, the continuation of the nerve currents that house the kundalini force. In conscious-mind terms, that will look like a tube or a nerve current which would be issued right from the top of the head.
In this state of pure consciousness, like in outer space, he tries to find just one nerve current right at the top of the head. When he finds this nerve current at the top of the head, he is taught to concentrate on it from where it begins at the top of the head right up to the end of it, and soon he finds the end of it. The experience of experiences. Of course if he has a mishmash in his subconscious mind, he won't be able to hold this pure state of consciousness. The subconscious mind in its power and intensity of this contemplation will begin picking up, and he will be coming right back into outer consciousness. But if his subconscious is fairly clean and under control, then he will be able to hold it, and he will hold it quite naturally. It will be a natural state to him after Self Realization.
In this next quote, there is an indication that an enlightened person is not affected by anything. He would not be afraid of big cats, for example..
Further, this next quote says that if you want to go visit some place, you just enter Satchidananda and "see it".
Another note in red, the intellect is replaced with Satchidananda which is more like a super-mind.
quote:
What is life like after realization? One difference is the relationship to possessions. Everything is yours, even if you don't own it. This is because you are secure in the Self as the only reality, the only permanence, and the security that depends on having possessions is gone. After Self Realization, we no longer have to go into ourself. Rather, we go out of ourself to see the world. We are always coming out rather than trying to go in. There is always a center, and we are the center, no matter where we are. No matter where we are, no matter how crude or rotten, the vibrations around us will not affect us. Curiosity is the final thing to leave the mind, which it does after Self Realization. The curiosity of things goes away -- of siddhis, for example. We no longer want power, because we are power, nonpower, unusable. And we don't have the yearning for Parasiva anymore; we don't have the yearning for the Self. And Satchidananda is now to us similar to what the intellect used to be. If we want to go to a far-off place, we go into Satchidananda and see it. It is that easy. Samyama, contemplation, is effortless to you now, like the intellect used to be; whereas before, samyama was a very big job which took a lot of energy and concentration. Therefore, before Parasiva we should not seek the siddhis. After Parasiva, through samyama, we keep the siddhis we need for our work.
This next quote contains an answer to the question "Where should I go after enlightenment", which, by the way, Adyshanti says that you don't have to go to a monastary or seclude yourself.
quote:
For ultimate freedom, everything has to go away, all human things, possessions, love, hate, family, friends, the desire for attention and community acceptance. The sannyasin renounces the world, and then, if his giving up is uncompromisingly complete, the world renounces the sannyasin. This means the world itself won't accept him as it once did as a participant in its mundane transactions of a job, social life, home and family. Earlier friends and associates sense his different view of their existence and now feel uncomfortable with him. Slowly he joins the band of hundreds of thousands of sannyasins throughout the world, where he is joyously accepted. All must go, the past and the future, and will naturally depart as the great realization deepens, as it penetrates through all parts of the body and all states of the mind. This alone is one good reason that family people and noncommitted singles are never encouraged to strive for realizations higher than Satchidananda, and then only for brief periods now and again at auspicious times. For family people, grihasthas, to go further into themselves would be to earn the bad karmas, kukarmas, of subsequent neglect of family dharma, and to lose everything that the world values.
Here it is mentioned that enlightenment is very easy to fall out of, so it is not permanent (learn something every day). So, if you have the feeling that you've finally arrived, it is not a good indication of enlightenment:
quote:
Many people have flashes of light in their head and think they are totally enlightened beings, then let down in their sadhana and daily worship to later suffer the consequences. Enlightenment brings certain traditionally unwanted rewards: attention, adulation; one becomes the center of attraction, knows more than others and can exist on words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, for a long time, even after the light fades and human emotions well up and new mixed karmas build. He then may become known as having attained the erratic human behavior of the "enlightened" person. This is totally unacceptable on the spiritual path. Once enlightened, or "in-light," even to a small degree because of daily sadhana, stay enlightened because of daily sadhana. Once having intellectually realized Vedic truths and become able to explain them because of study and daily sadhana, then realize these truths by intensifying the daily sadhanas, lest the remaining prarabdha karmas germinate and create new unwanted karmas to be lived through at a later time.
As well, egotism is always a danger:
quote:
Diligence is needed, lest higher consciousness fall unknowingly on the slippery slide of ignorance into the realms of lower consciousness, of fear, anger, resentment, jealousy, loneliness, malice and distrust. The faint memories of the beginning enlightenment experiences still hover, and while now in lower consciousness but still emulating the higher qualities in personal behavior, the now unenlightened claims full benefit for the previous enlightenment. Shame! This is because he did not maintain his disciplines after enlightenment. He let down and became an egocentric person.
Here is the link to that chapter:
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-49.html
I hope that I would motivate you to read that whole chapter. This is definately more like the classical form of enlightenment/self realization that has been portrayed throughout the ages in various spiritual teachings. It also accounts for many of my experiences and resonates deeply with me. I can relate to it.
I don't think it's right to reduce the meaning of the word 'enlightenment' like western Oneness teachers have done and then proceed to lay claim to it or teach others how to attain that state. It just doesn't seem like the real thing to me. If someone tells me that they are enlightened/self-realized they had better be ready to prove it to me in the classical definition of the word. (or not, I mean, who really cares, just so I have the correct practices to follow and the proper sign-posts that tell me how far I am from my goal).
According to the "Merging With Siva" book, I believe I broke the Brahman seal 20 years ago but "I" fell back down because I didn't know what really happened and didn't know any better. Hopefully this will not happen to you guys. :)
Again, thank you for the discussion. I appreciate it.
:)
TI
-
Hi TI....
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I just have to ask....
What exactly are you hoping to acheive by sharing all this (everything you have posted in this particular thread)? Are you hoping to have others change their definition of enlightenment? If so, what difference would that make to you? You don't seem to be practicing much of the AYP system so are you hoping that the AYP system would be "re-vamped" to include what you personally think it should? I don't really care at all, I am just curious as to why you would spend so much time and effort trying to convince others that "their" enlightenment is not true enlightenment as you (and perhaps a few others) define it. To me it would seem that it should be more important for you to ACHEIVE your version of enlightenment so that you could actually talk from a place of experience instead of spouting words written by others that seem to point in a direction you wish to point. Again, please don't take offence, this isn't meant to be offensive....I am just curious as to what you are hoping to acheive by sharing all this.
Love,
Carson[^]
Back into my cave now [;)]
-
Hi TI. Honestly, I truly don't care what dead people may or may not have said, simply because I can't talk to them and clarify their points. I prefer to talk with live people. Really. Anyone can find a quote on anything. The problems come from interpretation, translation, then editors that don't like the original, and cultural differences. So please, don't waste your time posting quotes to me--I simply don't read them. Just talk to me, I like that much better.
Pointing back to my post on the hourglass analogy: No matter what you call enlightenment, to get to those stages that you seem to be so attached to, you are going to have to get through the neck of the hourglass, and the only way through is by dropping your personal story. Once you are through, you can then pursue anything you like. But here's the thing. All those people at the top of the hourglass love to talk about what the people at the bottom of the hourglass are doing, but they don't bother slipping through and finding out for themselves. It is sooo much easier just to talk and talk and talk about them than to slip on through and find out what is really going on down there.
So come on down! [:)] Just see your personal self, see how it is screwing up your life and how it is BLOCKING you from seeing the Light (which BTW, I talk about constantly on my blog) and then drop the personal self so you can slip through to the bottom of the hourglass. THEN focus on creating worlds, reading peoples minds, teleporting to Caprica, or playing God. But you've got to drop your personal self first. It's as simple as that.
And on that "big cat" in the video... I actually thought I heard a kitten meowing in those woods to my right and was concerned for its well being as I was quite a ways from civilization. The thoughts that shot through my mind while I was looking over there were, "Can I catch it? Is it alright? Do I have anything to feed it?" Looking at the video I can see how that could have been misinterpreted, but like I said in my blog post, I just turn the camera on, talk, and turn it off. No editing.
Added a few minutes later: I just watched the "cat" portion of the video again and this ironically points out my problem with interpreting other peoples words without the back-and-forth of true dialogue: I said "I thought I heard a cat and I'm out here in the woods." What you interpreted was I was afraid of a big cat (mountain lion?), but what I meant was, domestic cats don't belong in the woods.
This is a perfect example of why talking is so much more effective at finding the truth than just reading or quoting someone else's words which can easily be misconstrued.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
...
So come on down! [:)] Just see your personal self, see how it is screwing up your life and how it is BLOCKING you from seeing the Light (which BTW, I talk about constantly on my blog) and then drop the personal self so you can slip through to the bottom of the hourglass. THEN focus on creating worlds, reading peoples minds, teleporting to Caprica, or playing God. But you've got to drop your personal self first. It's as simple as that.
Hi Wayne,
You know, it is very funny, but just today, I was reading about exactly what you are talking about, the ego dying, in "Merging With Siva"!
Now I'm getting a better understanding for sure. :)
I know it's another quote, but it's really the first time I've ever heard of this put into these words. It is definately a turning point and major milestone. And I can see how the "I" or "Me" perspective would change. It also resonates with Tolle's suicidal moment when he asked the question "Who is unsatisfied with my life?" as that moment is probably when his ego died.
Have a read:
link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-48.html
quote:
Ultimately, you begin to go through the harrowing experiences of past karma with your eyes firmly set upon your ultimate goal: Self Realization. As you live your life in service to mankind, reprogramming your subconscious and facing all of the things that you didn't face fully through your many past lives while working with your emotions and intellect, finally you come to the crucifixion of the ego. This happens when your last experiences have begun to fade and you no longer see yourself as a "Mr. Somebody" who came from some community somewhere, who is of a certain nationality and who, incidentally, distinguishes himself from all other people because he is on the path to enlightenment and he knows a lot of people that are not.
This great spiritual pride of the personal ego finally is crucified. It is put on the cross of man's own spiritual discernment. The death of the ego is a tremendous experience. You go through the dark night of the soul and feel that your family, friends and even the Gods have deserted you. During this time, you do not see light anymore. You see blackness all through the body, as all of the accumulated experiences of the many, many lives come in on you and you are not even aware where your awareness is in the mind. You can't figure it all out. It happens too rapidly. Then finally: "I am That. I am." You burst into the Self God.
Is not your "Dark Night of the Soul" described in that quote? It is great to have that documented as you did on your website.
And now, the experience that Adyashanti went through makes sense to me too, especially because of the reference to the reincarnations and erasing the full brunt of their impact on the ego. (still doesn't mean I believe anything he says, though, I just understand his experience a little better.)
So it would seem that the modern western 'Oneness' experience might be the death of the ego, which is a major turning point, which is a realization of the "Self God". Now, if this is all correct, I can see and believe the characteristics of this event, and it would explain why non of the more advanced stages of self realization are present at that moment. I think it would be like being born again, or being a baby at first.
So everything falls into place as a new understanding develops. It is not a final state of enlightenment, it is the beginning (or perhaps an essential step, maybe not the first one..) But it sure sounds like the 'shift of consciousness' that Yogananda Paramahansa Yogi talks about in "Autobiography of a Yogi" and the final dissolution of the "I Am" by Nisargadatta.
Oh, yes, I thought you thought you heard a mountain lion, judging by your body language and the look on your face.. The reason I pointed that out was to verify that in fact, you were being affected by some emotion. It is said that Buddha would have no reaction to having a saint on his left and a murderer pointing a sword at him on his right. I can see now that these characteristics must be developed, that full self-realization must be achieved through stages.
Once I've finished reading "Merging With Siva" I look forward to reading your documentation about the three weeks when you started watching your thoughts and solidified the transition..
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
The words describing authentic enlightenment vary; the essence of the experiencing is the same.
You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently.
Neither are you necessarily far from it; it boils down to willingness to let go of any identification with abstractions .... including the one you think of as "myself" (Tibetan Ice).
That's why silence, stillness ... pure awareness, free from the disturbance of thought ... is key.
Without it, you're using the same tools you've been using all your life to bind yourself ..... to bind yourself some more.
No answers are found in words; the answers are in your own experiencing ... the dissolution of "you" into the nothing, the all ...... all the way back here, liberated from the bondage of words, ideas, abstractions and concepts.
Nothing anyone else says matters at all.
Not me, not Wayne; not Adyashanti, not Yogani; not Nisargadatta, not monks in Hawaii.
No one else can wake you up; no one else can dissolve your personal me.
Just.
Let.
Go.
It's only worth everything.
quote:
Therefore, isn't a prerequisite of becoming enlightened the ability to enter nirvikalpa samadhi at will?
One definition of enlightenment could be:
Living *as* nirvikalpa samadhi.
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is simply original awareness, free of the abstractions of subject, object and perception.
A much simpler way to say this, is:
The dropping of the personal self.
By looking too hard for what you think it is, you can miss what it actually is.
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is just yet another term for the clear light of the awareness that is the true subject; that's all.
I AM is what is happening right now .... no abstractions, no limits, no distinctions, no ideas.
In true liberation, even human conditioning is experienced as utterly free.
Utterly.
All descriptions are general pointers, only.
Your experience may well be different.
You'll only know it when you are experiencing it.
If you think you've experienced it .... you haven't.
quote:
The curiosity of things goes away -- of siddhis, for example.
And you wonder why some of us seem disinterested in siddhis?
[:)]
quote:
So, if you have the feeling that you've finally arrived, it is not a good indication of enlightenment.
A point that's been clarified many times, in this thread alone:
If there's a you/me there ..... it's not enlightenment.
Enlightenment is the result of the dissolution of the me-idea.
quote:
I don't think it's right to reduce the meaning of the word 'enlightenment' like western Oneness teachers have done and then proceed to lay claim to it or teach others how to attain that state.
I utterly agree with this statement.
Ed Muzika outlines this quite nicely,
Here (http://itisnotreal.com/Self-Knowledge%20&%20Liberation-Dialogues.pdf).
quote:
just so I have the correct practices to follow and the proper sign-posts that tell me how far I am from my goal.
With all you've heard and read about the pitfalls of limited mind, why do you continue to let it tell you what is useful, or not?
Information is not useful.
Only experience is useful.
What's real?
Find out.
I hope this is helpful.
I hope you can open your heart and let these words resonate within you.
Enlightenment isn't about any one of us .... enlightenment is about all of us ... those experiencing it, those not experiencing it yet.
If you (anyone) had any idea how important it really is .... you'd stop debating ... you'd stop citing books ...... you'd do whatever it takes to simply be here ..... because it's not only about you.
Enlightenment is not just our greatest opportunity.
Enlightenment is our greatest responsibility.
Are You Willing?
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
...
Funny, we both had the same idea..
:)
TI
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
...
You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently.
...
Excuse me, but how would you know? Do you have any siddhis or visions that tell you this?
quote:
Neither are you necessarily far from it; it boils down to willingness to let go of any identification with abstractions .... including the one you think of as "myself" (Tibetan Ice).
That's why silence, stillness ... pure awareness, free from the disturbance of thought ... is key.
I don't think this is correct anymore. How does deep silence crucify the ego? What is the metaphysical reasoning behind your statement? Do you mean, you ignore it long enough and it will just go away on it's own?
Again, here is a quote from the monks:
link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-48.html
quote:
As you live your life in service to mankind, reprogramming your subconscious and facing all of the things that you didn't face fully through your many past lives while working with your emotions and intellect, finally you come to the crucifixion of the ego. This happens when your last experiences have begun to fade and you no longer see yourself as a "Mr. Somebody" who came from some community somewhere, who is of a certain nationality and who, incidentally, distinguishes himself from all other people because he is on the path to enlightenment and he knows a lot of people that are not.
I bolded that last part because I believe your statement, this statement:
quote:
You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently."
indicates that you've distinguished yourself from me as not being on the path to enlightenment. Therefore, you haven't let go of your ego either. Right?
:)
TI
-
Words are very powerful, like mantras. Use them sparingly or disputes inevitably arise. Nothing good comes from disputes.
Adamant
-
You win TI....
I'm out[8D]
Love,
Carson[^]
-
Hey TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
...
You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently.
...
quote:
Excuse me, but how would you know? Do you have any siddhis or visions that tell you this?
Nope ... just this entire thread .... which includes *your* own statements that you're not enlightened .... and which statement (mine, above) was meant to be taken in context with the very next sentence, which reads:
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Neither are you necessarily far from it; it boils down to willingness to let go of any identification with abstractions .... including the one you think of as "myself" (Tibetan Ice).
[:)]
I'm just trying to help you get where you say you want to go .... that's all.
If you don't want me to do this, I'll stop.
It's all perfectly fine, either way.
Sincere apologies, if my words didn't sit well .... though please .... do read the words you quoted with the sentence immediately following .... they were intended to be taken as a set:
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently.
Neither are you necessarily far from it; it boils down to willingness to let go of any identification with abstractions .... including the one you think of as "myself" (Tibetan Ice).
....... which is true of anyone operating at the level of mind, information and trying to understand enlightenment.
I did it for a long time.
Most of us do.
Getting that this doesn't work saves a LOT of time and effort.
That's all.
[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
That's why silence, stillness ... pure awareness, free from the disturbance of thought ... is key.
quote:
I don't think this is correct anymore. How does deep silence crucify the ego? What is the metaphysical reasoning behind your statement? Do you mean, you ignore it long enough and it will just go away on it's own?
Deep silence dissolves the ego because deep silence *is* true nature ..... formless awareness.
Every moment of silence is a moment in silent awareness.
You know that formless awareness is an aspect of the Self ... and one that must be passed through, before the unbound living of actual awareness can be liberated from misidentification with form.
Original, formless awareness is what I mean when I say "silence".
The silence resulting from meditation ....... gets misidentification with form ........ to *stop*.
When mind stops ...... silent awareness remains.
*That's* what I mean by silence.
Thinking mind is noise.
Silence isn't what thinking mind thinks it is.
quote:
Again, here is a quote from the monks:
link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-48.html
quote:
As you live your life in service to mankind, reprogramming your subconscious and facing all of the things that you didn't face fully through your many past lives while working with your emotions and intellect, finally you come to the crucifixion of the ego. This happens when your last experiences have begun to fade and you no longer see yourself as a "Mr. Somebody" who came from some community somewhere, who is of a certain nationality and who, incidentally, distinguishes himself from all other people because he is on the path to enlightenment and he knows a lot of people that are not.
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
I bolded that last part because I believe your statement, this statement:
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently."
indicates that you've distinguished yourself from me as not being on the path to enlightenment. Therefore, you haven't let go of your ego either. Right?
Not at all.
[:)]
In fact, I would say that my statement, beginning with very next sentence I wrote to you .... which for some reason you didn't quote ... is saying the same thing that Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami is saying.
Since you seem to resonate with the Hawaiian Monks .... let's review some of what Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami said on the exact page you linked to:
"But after you realize the Self, you see the mind for what it is -- a self-created principle. That's the mind ever creating itself. The mind is form ever creating form, preserving form, creating new forms and destroying old forms. That is the mind, the illusion, the great unreality, the part of you that in your thinking mind you dare to think is real."
"What gives the mind that power? Does the mind have power if it is unreal? What difference whether it has power or hasn't power, or the very words that I am saying when the Self exists because of itself? You could live in the dream and become disturbed by it. Or you can seek and desire with a burning desire to cognize reality and be blissful because of it.
Man's destiny leads him back to himself. Man's destiny leads him into the cognition of his own Being; leads him further into the realization of his True Being. They say you must step onto the spiritual path to realize the Self. You only step on the spiritual path when you and you alone are ready, when what appears real to you loses its appearance of reality. Then and only then are you able to detach yourself enough to seek to find a new and permanent reality."
"All concepts of time, space, mind, universe, microcosm and macrocosm are what occur when inhabiting a physical body. But they are only concepts, not relating to what actually occurs."
"Therefore, to look for realizations through correlations or to seek correlations as destinations is futile. This is because what you seek after already exists in its fullness within each soul."
~Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami
**
And now, let's review what I said:
"You're operating at a distinct disadvantage, because you're not experiencing enlightenment or anything close to it, currently.
Neither are you necessarily far from it; it boils down to willingness to let go of any identification with abstractions .... including the one you think of as "myself" (Tibetan Ice)."
~Kirtanman
I see the two sets of quotes as identical ...... and identical in intent:
To help the reader see where Siva is found .... and where Siva is not found.
Ironically, I was just a bit more brief, in this particular instance.
[:D]
And I'm quite confident that Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami is intending the same thing with his words, as I am with mine:
We both simply want you to be able to say, along with us:
Sivo'ham ....
.... I am Siva.
And, TI, by the way:
We're on the same side.
[:)]
_/\\_
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Words are very powerful, like mantras. Use them sparingly or disputes inevitably arise. Nothing good comes from disputes.
Adamant
Beautiful.
True.
I Agree.
[:)]
-
A suggestion for all:
Seek not to see where a certain expression about the truth may be wrong ... but where it may be right.
[:)]
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
Gee, I'm starting to believe that you really don't have any ego. I will try to keep mine out of this and not get wounded so easily.. :)
Please answer this one question: Is inner silence dark or light?
quote:
Deep silence dissolves the ego because deep silence *is* true nature ..... formless awareness.
Every moment of silence is a moment in silent awareness.
When mind stops ...... silent awareness remains.
...
*That's* what I mean by silence.
When the mind stops, do you see light? Is it black or light?
When my mind stops, I see light. There is this big ball of pure white light in my head. Lately, the last few days, my mind doesn't have to stop to see the light. It gets more pronounced towards the end of the day now and when I simply focus my attention inwards, it is there.
It is as if my consciousness is split, one part pointing outwards to the external world and the other part pointing inwards to a vast open space and this big light. The upper area protruding forward from my forehead contains more of that space and when I tune into someone, I just think of them, I see beings/blobs of brilliant white light. I'm not naming names..
The light in my head is usually just as big as my head on the inside but sometimes it is smaller and sometimes bigger. Lately I've been sending thoughts into that light and it dissolves them, or at least that appears to be what is happening. When my mind stops, the light is there. When I am 'silent' the light is there. Do you see the light too? Is that silence? Is inner silence dark or light?
Much appreciation.
:)
TI
-
Hey Kirtanman....[:)]
You said:
quote:
it boils down to willingness to let go of any identification with abstractions .... including the one you think of as "myself"
Can you suggest for me what else one can do (besides spiritual practices....I got that covered) to speed up the process of becoming enlightened? I have a complete willingness to no longer identify with "the story of me"....I do not want to think of myself as "seperate" and I Know that I am not what most would call "an individual"....but I still find myself "unenlightened". What am I missing? Is it just a matter of "time"? Do I need to sell all my belongings, leave the family and go on a "do or die" RV trip to enlightenment like Wayne did? (kidding[:o)]) Your perspective would be greatly appreciated.
Love,
Carson[^]
-
Hi TI,
You might find this lesson interesting on the relationship between visions (seeing lights) and enlightenment:
http://www.aypsite.com/plus/92.html
The relationship between nirvikalpa samadhi and enlightenment is covered in this lesson:
http://www.aypsite.com/plus/199.html
"As the crown opening and nearly purified nervous system mature, we are drawn up without the chaos and mayhem that is so common in premature awakenings. We are drawn up into pure ecstatic bliss. Then we can surrender...
We may be gone and not know where we were. Or we may have some celestial visions. When we do come back, we are somehow new, illuminated, radiating like never before. That is the beginning of the experience in the awakened crown."
quote:
I don't think this is correct anymore. How does deep silence crucify the ego? What is the metaphysical reasoning behind your statement? Do you mean, you ignore it long enough and it will just go away on it's own?
The term "ego" in this thread seems to mean "identification of the self with the body and the changing nature of mind". In which case, the ego isn't like a little man inside your head that will give up and walk away if it is ignored for long enough. The process of identification with the body/ mind is something that needs to be continually recreated in the mind, in order to produce the illusion of substantiality. In other words, in silence, the story of limited existence falls away, and is seen to have never had any real substantial foundation. In silence, all that remains is our divine nature, eternal, radiant. As Yogani says in his book on self-inquiry, this is when we are justified in replacing the small lettered "self" with the capital "Self".
For an alternative view of the ego, and it's relationship with enlightenment see this thread:
http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=3429&SearchTerms=sun
Yogani tends to use the term ego in this sense also, as our true nature which is gradually illuminated, and expanded to divine expression, rather than as a problem which needs to be got rid of.
With regards to the falling away of false identification with limited self, and it's relationship with the enlightenment process: The Buddha said that false identification with self is a fetter which falls away at the first stage of enlightenment which he called sotaapanna. He described this as being more marvellous than any experience in heaven. Beyond stream entry (sotaapanna, the first stage of enlightenment) are the stages of sakadagami, anaagaami and Arahant with the natural arising of the siddhis.
Christi
-
TI: For me, it is Light (capital L). Either Light flowing through me (Enlightenment of Passion/Yang), Light glowing in me (Enlightenment of Stillness/Yin), or Light living in Light (no me at all, Enlightenment of Oneness). Those are my terms, see my blog posts on the Three Enlightenments. But basically they feel active (Yang), passive (Yin) and interactive (Oneness).
For what it's worth.
-
CarsonZi: My suggestions are to read up on what enlightenment FEELS like (see the links on my videos on Jenny Wade & Michael Washburn on transpersonal views of unity consciousness (helped me a lot)).
Then see what is blocking you from that (the personal self). Seeing the personal self in this negative way makes it much easier to drop.
Here's a draft on a blog post I wrote yesterday and hope to upload in a few days:
quote:
Why You Suck
My belief is that the easiest way to wake up is:
1. See and experience how wonderful enlightenment feels.
2. See how the illusion of a Personal Self sucks (see below).
3. Naturally drop the sucky Personal Self because you're sick of it.
Why The Personal Self (You) Sucks
You rarely see the beauty of reality.
In fact, reality often sucks.
Having to work sucks.
Bosses suck.
Being humiliated by a sucky boss sucks.
Staying at work because you don't know what will happen next sucks.
The future is ominous.
The present isn't good enough.
The past sucks.
The past was great but now it's gone and that sucks.
You're too fat.
You're too thin.
You're hair is too thick, thin, kinky, curly or straight.
You're hair is too gray. Way too gray.
Getting old sucks.
Death is scary.
Hell is even scarier.
Are you going to hell?
Heaven sounds really boring.
You ARE going to hell.
You are a failure.
You can't do that because you tried before and you sucked at it.
You hate to fail.
Failure sucks.
You hope no one ever finds out when you _____ed the ______.
You regret it that you _____ed so-and-so.
And now you feel guilty because you're thinking about when you ____ed so-and-so.
You worry about things that haven't even happened yet.
You know it's going to happen though. You just know it.
You need more stuff.
You never have enough stuff.
The stuff you have isn't good enough.
The stuff you have doesn't feel as good as it used to.
This computer sucks. You need a new one.
New computers are such a pain to set up though.
And you just got this computer set up the way you wanted it.
Computers suck.
Look at all that old computer equipment you have in that drawer.
All this stuff is smothering you and that sucks.
You have way too much stuff.
Your love life sucks too.
You want a more attentive lover.
You want a lover who satisfies your every need.
Your lover doesn't love you enough.
Your lover is way too selfish.
Why does love feel so needy?
Your lover keeps breaking your heart.
Heartbreak sucks.
You deserve a better lover.
Love sucks.
You suspect people think you are a lousy mother, father, sister, brother, and/or friend.
People just don't understand you.
They keep judging you.
Your lousy, good-for-nothing lover keeps judging you too.
Being judged sucks.
People suck.
This post sucks.
Wayne sucks for making you feel like a loser.
Wayne's a loser.
Judging others doesn't feel so hot either.
Well, a little bit, but now you feel guilty again.
You're such a lousy example of a human being.
If only the world revolved around you, you won't have to worry what anyone thought.
The world SHOULD revolve around you.
Why doesn't the world revolve around you?
If they'd just listen to you, then the world wouldn't suck so much.
It sucks that nobody listens to you.
People suck, they don't listen to you, and a lot of them are out to get you.
The world if full of terrorists, murderers, rapists, child molesters, and meanies.
And all of them are out to get you.
Well, you're sure some of them are out to get you.
Did you lock the front door?
Fear sucks.
You shouldn't be afraid.
You SHOULD be afraid because there is danger everywhere.
Pit bulls hate you.
All spiders are poisonous and want to kill you.
Drug addicts are going to break into your house and steal all your stuff.
Life is dangerous.
You're born, you get good stuff which is taken from you, your hair turns gray, and you die.
Life is meaningless.
Life sucks.
Once you wake up--once you drop the illusion of the personal self--none of the above will ever bother you again.
Ever.
The personal self is just a thought gone awry. It is just a fleeting fantasy. It isn't real. And it is causing you a world of suffering.
And that sucks.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Kirtanman :)
When the mind stops, do you see light? Is it black or light?
When my mind stops, I see light. There is this big ball of pure white light in my head.
This is illusion. Free your mind without reference.
Adamant
-
Hi Wayne....a pleasure to "meet" you....I have enjoyed reading your blog, and your posts here on the AYP Forum....thank you for sharing your journey with us....I'm sure it is helping more then just me _/\\_
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
CarsonZi: My suggestions are to read up on what enlightenment FEELS like (see the links on my videos on Jenny Wade & Michael Washburn on transpersonal views of unity consciousness (helped me a lot)).
I will check out the links for sure[:)].....thank you.
I do know what "Unity Consciousness" feels like from personal experience (both through hallucinogenic drug use in the past and now through the AYPractices), but have not been able to sustain it at this point. It is still very early in my "yoga" career (basically only 19 months of serious practices) but already I have been very blessed with some wonderful progress (see what was just written in this post here: http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=6808#61132 and my response two posts below, or the About section on my website www.blissedyoga.com ). So I know what I am "looking" for, I just don't know how to sustain it 24/7. I am at the point now where "The Witness" is generally present at all times, and I am not caught up in being the "person" anymore, but I still catch myself doing/saying things from the "I/Me/Mine" perspective. I can see these instances for what they are as they are happening, and can usually drop them pretty quick, but they are still happening here.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Then see what is blocking you from that (the personal self). Seeing the personal self in this negative way makes it much easier to drop.
Yes there is no pleasure anymore in being "the individual"....I can't wait to let go of what is holding me back from dropping all stories here, but despite the extreme desire to be what I truly am (Pure Unbound Awareness) it just doesn't seem to be my experience yet. This was why I asked if it was just a matter of time now. But even in saying that I realize that time is an illusion so it shouldn't be a matter of time....perhaps it is a matter of purification...I don't know.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Here's a draft on a blog post I wrote yesterday and hope to upload in a few days:
Why You Suck
My belief is that the easiest way to wake up is:
1. See and experience how wonderful enlightenment feels.
2. See how the illusion of a Personal Self sucks (see below).
3. Naturally drop the sucky Personal Self because you're sick of it.
Well, I have experienced the Bliss and complete freedom of "Unity Consciousness" (whether that is enlightenment or not, I withhold judgment at this point lest I start another arguement[;)]) already, so that shouldn't be the issue. And I also realize through personal experience that "The Personal self" (small "s"[8D]) sucks ass.....but other then doing my sadhana (which includes the AYPractices, Self Inquiry methods like "The Work" by Byron Katie, and more) I have no idea how to "Naturally drop the sucky Personal Self". It seems easy to SAY, just stop believing your story....just drop the Personal Self, but if that just isn't happening yet, what else can I do to speed this up? Perhaps there is impatience here....perhaps just some extreme bhakti[:p]...either way, I need it (abiding Unity Consciousness) NOW! I can't/won't wait any longer!
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Why The Personal Self (You) Sucks
You rarely see the beauty of reality.
Oh, I see the beauty alright[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
In fact, reality often sucks.
Reality is in general quite Blissful here now.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Having to work sucks.
What is work? A job? What is a job? It's just something that you do. I love everything I do....can't think of anything better to do then what I am doing right Now! [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Bosses suck.
Only if you "think" they do and wish they were different then they are!
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Being humiliated by a sucky boss sucks.
Eh....humilation doesn't really happen here anymore. Would have to care about how I was percieved to be humiliated[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Staying at work because you don't know what will happen next sucks.
There is only Now[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
The future is ominous.
See above[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
The present isn't good enough.
The present is perfect just as it Is actually[^]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
The past sucks.
The past is the past.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
The past was great but now it's gone and that sucks.
Thank GOD the past is gone!!!!! See linked thread at the top.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You're too fat.
Nope.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You're too thin.
Again, nope! [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You're hair is too thick, thin, kinky, curly or straight.
Well I AM balding and am only 28, but...there's very little I can do about that now...so, I can deal with it[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You're hair is too gray. Way too gray.
Not yet, but I'm sure that's in the mail[:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Getting old sucks.
Maybe for some, but I enjoy growing older.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Death is scary.
Actually, I look forward to death. This fear no longer exists for me.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Hell is even scarier.
Hell has nothing on me.....I lived through Hell already...couldn't be any worse then what I have already been through.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Are you going to hell?
Nope.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Heaven sounds really boring.
Not sure how to comment on that. Never felt that way before.[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You ARE going to hell.
I have already been there, so.....bring it on![}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You are a failure.
Yes, I have indeed identified deeply with this one before....and it may occasionally show it's ugly head in the present at times. But usually I can see this as just a thought....that's really all that is is a thought. And believing these thoughts only causes suffering, and I refuse to suffer any longer....I did that for WAAAAYYYY too long already!
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You can't do that because you tried before and you sucked at it.
Again just a thought and I try to see these as such.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You hate to fail.
That I do.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Failure sucks.
That it does.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You hope no one ever finds out when you _____ed the ______.
It's true.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You regret it that you _____ed so-and-so.
I don't regret it, but I am sorry for hurting them. Everything happens for a reason, and had these instances not happened I would not be where I am today, on the path I am today, so I can't totally
"regret" it. I just have to make ammends as possible, and let go.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
And now you feel guilty because you're thinking about when you ____ed so-and-so.
No....I can't feel guilty about it....it is in the past and if I were presented with the situation today I would TOTALLY pass! Have passed.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You worry about things that haven't even happened yet.
It's true. I worry that I won't be able to survive and feed my family when I make the transition from my salaried day job with "The Corp.", and move into self employed Yoga Teaching as a living....it is true.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You know it's going to happen though. You just know it.
I choose not to believe it. My biggest issue I am learning (with regards to this statement and the one above, is that I have a hard time charging what I am worth. I am currently reading a book called "How to make one hell of a profit and still go to heaven" by Dr. John Demartini though and it is helping me see this in a new light. There is progress.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You need more stuff.
Absolutely NOT! I gave most of my stuff away. I threw up (sorry, "out"[:p]) my TV just a few weeks ago even.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You never have enough stuff.
I have way more then I need.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
The stuff you have isn't good enough.
It would be nice to have a computer that my kundalini hasn't destroyed yet! [;)] Then I could work on the website from home and not have to go to the Internet Cafe just to make website changes!
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
The stuff you have doesn't feel as good as it used to.
Nah...it's all good.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
This computer sucks. You need a new one.
Hahahahahahahahaha......[:D] See comment two above.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
New computers are such a pain to set up though.
That's what "My Mac Store" is for isn't it?[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
And you just got this computer set up the way you wanted it.
Yeah, no[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Computers suck.
Yes, and no. When they work they are nice, but they can be frustrating if they don't! I see this for what it is though....more thoughts leading into suffering.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Look at all that old computer equipment you have in that drawer.
Not me man!
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
All this stuff is smothering you and that sucks.
Did feel that way about a year and a half ago, but then I gave it all/threw it all away.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You have way too much stuff.
Maybe you do, but not me[:o)]...I have just enough now[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Your love life sucks too.
I have recently (I mean REALLY recently) dropped my sex addiction, so my Love life is how it should be now.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You want a more attentive lover.
She's pregnant so I'll cut her some slack I guess[:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You want a lover who satisfies your every need.
I certainly DID! But that is again something in the (recent) past now.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Your lover doesn't love you enough.
How I could ever Know how much was enough? I have just enough I think.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Your lover is way too selfish.
Actually, I did have this thought come into my head just this morning....and I had to apologize to her because of it....it made me realize that it was ME who was selfish. (thank you Byron Katie and "The Work"!)
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Why does love feel so needy?
Because it is "Imitation Love", not Real Unconditional Love.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Your lover keeps breaking your heart.
No, she is pretty good to me.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Heartbreak sucks.
It certainly hurts! But I haven't had to experience that in about 4.5 years now....it was actually a big part of what caused "the shift" here, so I am actually very thankful for it now. At the time it certainly did suck though!
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You deserve a better lover.
No, I deserve what I got![8D]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Love sucks.
No it doesn't!!! Love is beautiful, and a great blessing to experience. Especially when it comes from inside.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You suspect people think you are a lousy mother, father, sister, brother, and/or friend.
Eh...let 'em think what they will. I know the Truth...I am doing my best.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
People just don't understand you.
Perhaps, but that really doesn't make one lick of difference at this point.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
They keep judging you.
And always will.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Your lousy, good-for-nothing lover keeps judging you too.
She DOES keep judging me, but that's ok....she has to sleep against the wall, hahahahahahaha[:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Being judged sucks.
It can be frustrating to feel misunderstood, but really, Life is as it Is, and to fight against it is pointless. People will always judge.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
People suck.
At?[:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
This post sucks.
No this post is awesome, and is helping me highlight areas that are still holding me to my story...so THANK YOU!
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Wayne sucks for making you feel like a loser.
You don't make me feel anything but Joy my friend[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Wayne's a loser.
Not in my mind, and I doubt in yours either[:p]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Judging others doesn't feel so hot either.
No...you are right....it feels much better to allow people to be as they are.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Well, a little bit, but now you feel guilty again.
Hahahaha....perhaps.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You're such a lousy example of a human being.
I definitely used to feel this way, but I don't have that thought (or at least don't believe it) anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
If only the world revolved around you, you won't have to worry what anyone thought.
The world DOESN'T revolve around me!?!?!?[:o)] (kidding)
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
The world SHOULD revolve around you.
Abso-fricken-lutely! (again, kidding)
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Why doesn't the world revolve around you?
Because there is no ME!
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
If they'd just listen to you, then the world wouldn't suck so much.
Hmmmm.... it wasn't so long ago that I still identified with this one, but now I just try to live by example....it seems to work a million times more effectively.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
It sucks that nobody listens to you.
Yet another thought I don't believe anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
People suck, they don't listen to you, and a lot of them are out to get you.
Suck? No. Don't listen? Yes, but that's ok. Out to get me? Perhaps but I kinda doubt it.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
The world if full of terrorists, murderers, rapists, child molesters, and meanies.
Perhaps, but isn't it beautiful all the diversity? [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
And all of them are out to get you.
Bring it on! Rawwwr![:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Well, you're sure some of them are out to get you.
Maybe, but if they are I probably deserve it[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Did you lock the front door?
Fortunately my wife and I live in a basement suite so....there IS no front door! hahahahaha[:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Fear sucks.
Yes. Perhaps it does, for those who are afraid. I can't think of much I am afraid of other then failing to provide for my family.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You shouldn't be afraid.
No I shouldn't...and I am in general not.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You SHOULD be afraid because there is danger everywhere.
Don't believe it.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Pit bulls hate you.
All animals LOOOOOOOVE me[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
All spiders are poisonous and want to kill you.
My wife certainly thinks so! I just pick them up and put them outside...they seem to have no ill will towards me, and I have none towards them so....it's all good.[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Drug addicts are going to break into your house and steal all your stuff.
Hahahahaha....um....read my About page [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Life is dangerous.
It certainly can be! Especially when you live in Calgary Canada, there are 6 inches or more of new snow everyday and your mayor thinks it's more worthwhile to spend $25 million on a "Peace" bridge for the soldiers then to put money into snow removal! But I'm still kickin' and I got snow tires[^]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
You're born, you get good stuff which is taken from you, your hair turns gray, and you die.
Hahahaha....it's kinda true! But it's all good[:)] I don't need stuff, and I'm lucky if I have enough hair soon to even turn grey!
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Life is meaningless.
Life is the most precious thing there is.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Life sucks.
Life is perfect.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Once you wake up--once you drop the illusion of the personal self--none of the above will ever bother you again.
I can't wait...literally CAN'T/WON'T wait another second! I flat out refuse to wait! Give it to me NOW!! (Said to the self, not you)
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Ever.
The personal self is just a thought gone awry. It is just a fleeting fantasy. It isn't real. And it is causing you a world of suffering.
And that sucks.
I see this I really do. And thanks to you and this post, I can see a few areas that are still causing me suffering. I will work on those, and if I'm STILL not enlightened by the time those things are resolved I'm coming after you for more suggestions![;)]
Thanks Wayne.
Love,
Carson[^]
-
Hi Carson,
quote:
I can't wait...literally CAN'T/WON'T wait another second! I flat out refuse to wait! Give it to me NOW!! (Said to the self, not you)
There is a man from the U.K. who teaches advaita. He was interviewed once about his enlightenment. The interviewer asked him how he became enlightened, and he said: "Just like everyone else who ever got enlightened... I gave up."
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Carson,
quote:
I can't wait...literally CAN'T/WON'T wait another second! I flat out refuse to wait! Give it to me NOW!! (Said to the self, not you)
There is a man from the U.K. who teaches advaita. He was interviewed once about his enlightenment. The interviewer asked him how he became enlightened, and he said: "Just like everyone else who ever got enlightened... I gave up."
Christi
Yes.
-
Hi Christi.....[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
There is a man from the U.K. who teaches advaita. He was interviewed once about his enlightenment. The interviewer asked him how he became enlightened, and he said: "Just like everyone else who ever got enlightened... I gave up."
So what does "giving up" entail/look like?
Love,
Carson[^]
-
Don't pursue or reject.
Adamant
-
Hi Adamantclearlight....
You mean don't persue or reject enlightenment right?
Love,
Carson[^]
-
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Hi Adamantclearlight....
You mean don't persue or reject enlightenment right?
Love,
Carson[^]
Anything at all. Don't reach for enlightenment; or reject anything else.
Adamant
-
Hi Carson,
Yes, as Adamant says it is the ending of striving for, or rejecting (of anything). As we begin to realize oneness, there is a gradual ending of the yearning for realization, and a gentle abiding in and acceptance of our true nature (reality) as it is. That's what giving up looks like in practice. Yogani used to refer to this transition from seeking to oneness as "the crossing over".
He mentioned it in this post from a few years ago:
"To help clarify, consider a seed becoming a flower.
Is a seed a flower? Can it become a flower instantly? In potential, the seed is everything the flower is. But it is a process for the seed to become the flower -- sprout, leaves, stalk, bud, blossoming, and finally ... flower! The process can be facilitated with good fertilizer and water -- not too much and not too little. Then the flower will come. Near its end the seed can proclaim, "I am the flower!" And, poof! It can be imagined to be an instant transformation. But was it really? No. It took some time. Nature operates that way on the physical plane. Only in vain can natural process be denied, which is very frustrating. So forget all that "instant" nonsense, and let the process happen naturally. Give the poor seed a break, and have some fun along the way. Each stage is a blooming. It is divine joy in motion.
In AYP we attend to the process by facilitating with practices, and taking it out into our activity every day without thinking about it too much. We just go within and then come out and do. It is daily union by degrees, which is yoga. If our methods are good, the becoming happens. But any appearance of "instant" is illusion. Our neurobiology doesn't operate instantly, and neither will our emerging enlightenment, which is entirely dependent on our nervous sytem.
So, "crossing over" is the process we are all engaged in as we practice. Better to engage in effective methods than labor over the process itself. The process is "under the hood."
Dual and non-dual are seed and flower. It is not black and white. The journey is through much overlap and blending -- a crossing over through many shades of gray. In the end, the seed is burnt and we are the eternal flower.
It is not complicated. Natural process does not need our supervision. Only the right amount fertilizer and water. The rest will take care of itself.
Self-inquiry is part of this. But like all of our practices beyond deep meditation, it only offers significant help when we have reached a certain stage of purification and opening. Before that, self-inquiry is building castles in the air and like pushing on a string, which many who pursue self-inquiry prematurely have found. When it is time for non-dual self-inquiry, it will happen all by itself, and few pointers will be necessary. You can be sure that if it is a big deal, it is too soon, and it will be an unnecessary distraction.
Self-inquiry will happen naturally as inner silence and ecstatic conductivity rise. Then the heart and mind will be infused with the necessary prerequisites, and it will happen. First things first." [Yogani]
http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=2315#19330
As Yogani says, it is not something you can force, it is something which happens naturally when the time is right and the sadhana is coming to fruition.
What is it like? Heaven on earth.
Christi
-
Wayne,
Great post...it really helped me out today. Today sucked...but I knew today didn't suck, I knew it was "my story" about today that sucked...but it still felt like it sucked.
After I read you post the sucky feeling was gone...helped me deconstruct all of the thoughts the personal self was creating that made things feel sucky...and then it didn't suck any more [:D]
Thanks for contributing on the forum...much obliged
Peace & Love
-
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
TI: For me, it is Light (capital L). Either Light flowing through me (Enlightenment of Passion/Yang), Light glowing in me (Enlightenment of Stillness/Yin), or Light living in Light (no me at all, Enlightenment of Oneness). Those are my terms, see my blog posts on the Three Enlightenments. But basically they feel active (Yang), passive (Yin) and interactive (Oneness).
For what it's worth.
H Wayne, :)
Thanks for mentioning this.
There are a few statements in this chapter that really resonate with me at this time (Merging with Siva):
link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-08.html
The first one is:
quote:
Remember, when the seal is broken and clear white light has flooded the mind, there is no more a gap between the inner and the outer. Even uncomplimentary states of consciousness can be dissolved through meditation and seeking again the light.
and:
quote:
The chela is taught to dissolve his reactionary habit patterns in the clear white light each evening in contemplative states. Reactionary conditions that inevitably occur during the day he clears with actinic love and understanding so that they do not congest or condense in his subconscious mind, building a new set of confused, congested forces that would propel him into outer states of consciousness, leaving his vision of the clear white light as an experience in memory patterns retreating into the past.
and this one:
quote:
The uninitiated might ask: "What is it like to be in the clear white light?" The young aspirant may reply, "It is as simple as sitting in a darkened room, closing the eyes in deep concentration and finding the entire inside of the cranium turning into light."
:)
TI
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
The relationship between nirvikalpa samadhi and enlightenment is covered in this lesson:
http://www.aypsite.com/plus/199.html
"As the crown opening and nearly purified nervous system mature, we are drawn up without the chaos and mayhem that is so common in premature awakenings. We are drawn up into pure ecstatic bliss. Then we can surrender...
We may be gone and not know where we were. Or we may have some celestial visions. When we do come back, we are somehow new, illuminated, radiating like never before. That is the beginning of the experience in the awakened crown."
Hi Christi,
I would respectfully disagree that the lesson above refers to nirvikalpa samadhi .. though as we've discovered in this thread .... "definitions vary".
[:)]
The key to nirvikalpa samadhi is:
It's experienced consciously, as freedom from all form ...., which is our first taste, as yogis and yoginis, to the amazing reality that who and what we really are .... really *isn't* limited to form, in any way.
And so, the examples Yogani gives may be reflective of certain fairly advanced stages of meditative awareness, but they're not nirvikalpa samadhi, by any definition I've ever heard (not that that matters; it's just true ...[:)]) ... and I didn't see that Yogani was saying that they were, either.
And I don't find that over-focus on definitions is helpful; I just felt this clarification might help avoid some further confusion.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
PS- Yogani does give his view on Nirvikalpa Samadhi,
here (http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=2897#25651).
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Please answer this one question: Is inner silence dark or light?
Neither.
The light/dark dynamic changes (as we progress in practice/awakening), if it's experienced at all.
As Yogani has outlined many times, the processes of yogic purification can, and tend to, create all sorts of experiences ... and they're all best ignored.
Attachment of attention to form is the entire problem.
Recognizing silent, still awareness as the actual experiencer of whatever is being experienced ... is the key to releasing this artificial attachment which keeps awareness bound to the idea that it is an ego.
It can be called silence, or awareness, or stillness.
I hope that answers your question.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
PS- In anticipation of a likely question .... [:)] .. yes, I *have* experienced the cranium full of light ... pretty much exactly as described, in the link/quotes you posted, off and on, for several months, about three years ago.
However, you move beyond that ... where stillness/silence/awareness isn't tied to any form appearing in it .... which is why I didn't focus on that aspect (light in the head), in my main post above ... the light isn't the silence/stillness, though it is s one of the known signs of moving toward realization.
-
Hi Kirtanman,
This is how I understand the term nirvikalpa samadhi based on the way I have seen the term used:
As the mind begins to enter states of mental absorption, at first thought forms (mental formations) are still present. These states of absorption are called samvikalpa samadhi. When consciousness passes beyond all mental formations, it enters nirvikalpa samadhi. In nirvikalpa samadhi there is no longer any consciousness of the physical, astral or causal dimensions and the heart beat and breath are suspended. The state of nirvikalpa samadhi can only be sustained for a limited period of time before the physical body is dropped (about 22 days).
Beyond nirvikalpa samadhi is sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, or naturally abiding samadhi without thought. In this state the Yogi is conscious of all the realms of being, can walk around and beg for food etc. and there is no time limit on the duration of the samadhi state.
This would tie in with the Wikipedia article on samadhi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi
"Staying in Nirvikalpa Samadhi is effortless but even from this condition one must eventually return to ego-consciousness. Otherwise, this highest level of Samadhi leads to Nirvana, which means total Unity and the logical end of individual identity (and also death of the body). However, it is entirely possible to stay in Nirvikalpa Samadhi and yet be fully functional in this world. This condition is known as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi or Sahaja Samadhi. Only the truly Enlightened can be and remain spontaneously free.
In Nirvikalpa Samadhi, all attachment to the material world is dissolved. All awareness is withdrawn step by step from the physical, astral and causal bodies until self-realization or oneness with the soul is achieved. During this process, breathing ceases and the heart stops beating[citation needed]. Aware and fully conscious oneness with soul is then achieved in a most loving way, and all cells of the physical body are flooded with the Ocean of Divine Love and Divine Bliss for any period of duration—hours, days, weeks, until the individual shifts his awareness from the soul back to the physical body. Being fully functional in this world, his awareness stays in connection with the Divine. But some "strange" conditions accompany this state—better health (the body is sustained by Divine Grace), better feelings (even for other people who may contact the body which the enlightened soul has reidentified with) and various miraculous happenings may occur in connection with the Enlightened one."[Wiki]
I believe that TI holds the same definition of nirvikalpa samadhi as I do (and Wikipedia) and explains why he was talking about nirvikalpa samadhi earlier in relation to the suspension of breath etc. and in terms of duration.
If you look carefully at the post you linked to by Yogani, you can see that he talks about rising nirvikalpa samadhi, mid-stage nirvikalpa samadhi, and about sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, but not about nirvikalpa samadhi itself.
That's why I referred TI to the passage in lesson 199 as a reference to nirvikalpa samadhi in the main lessons as the crown chakra is one of the portals through which nirvikalpa samadhi is realized.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Hi Christi.....[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
There is a man from the U.K. who teaches advaita. He was interviewed once about his enlightenment. The interviewer asked him how he became enlightened, and he said: "Just like everyone else who ever got enlightened... I gave up."
So what does "giving up" entail/look like?
Love,
Carson[^]
Hoo-boy.
This is IT, in a nutshell, Brother Carson!
(And we've all asked it .... and asked it this way ..... often, repeatedly, and with great frustration ..... )
[:D]
Imagine you're holding two *heavy* suitcases, one in each hand, and you're tired .... and tired of it .... you *hate* the freakin' suitcases.
And Swami Skycapananda comes along and says:
Just.
Let.
Go.
And you of course take full advantage of the Swami's generous offer, and respond by saying:
"But .... *How*??"
.. while still holding the suitcases.
Giving up just looks like ..... giving up.
Have you ever felt totally defeated ..... totally .... just ... *done* with something?
It feels like that .... but it doesn't have to involve unpleasant states.
You've cleared out a vast majority of the unpleasantly-experienced stuff, and quite possibly *all* of it that would make letting go into enlightenment more difficult.
(You wouldn't be experiencing life so consistently positively/blissfully, if this weren't largely or completely true.)
As you can see, per your responses to Wayne's post/questions ... you still do have some story .... and .... you see it as a story ... which is the part that matters.
So ... just back away from the Carson-story, if when it arises; if/when it doesn't ... enjoy the moment fully, as the moment, fully.
When there's a you *in* the moment, an artificial *idea* ... a story ... has been generated (or, more accurately, remembered).
If you do immerse in story for a little while, just let it go as you can ...... and don't look back.
'Cause when you do turn back .... you turn into a pillar of salt.
You may know that story.
[8D]
Ego is a closed-loop with the past; frozen.
Reality now is the very river of life we each and all actually are.
The river doesn't know it's the river .... it just IS the river.
Knowledge is *bondage* .... knowledge is reflection .,... knowing is living; knowing is being; we can't have it ... we can't get it ..... we are it.
When I read through Wayne's questions, I laughed out loud at a few, well remembering them (the spider one ..... don't tell anyone ........... [:D]) .... which didn't fade until fairly recently ..... 'long about the time of this ... shift ... I've been referring to .... "Hm".
[:)]
Now, it's like (reading those questions) ..... they feel almost familiar ....... almost ..... but there's not even quite the ability to feel like I can "get" what that whole thing (personal self, story, needs, wants, fears, hopes, regrets, judgments, etc.) was about ...... it's just gone.
Even enlightenment; even Self ...... I could truly care less about any of that ... it just doesn't matter.
It really does dissolve.
And all that ego-ice melts into the flowing of reality, now.
Before, I had a life.
Now, I'm living unbound.
[:)]
What melts the ice?
Not believing in any of the story .... no matter what.
If there's believing ..... let it go; move on.
Every moment is a new universe, now.
All story is artificial overlay.
And I can feel how bad you want it .... that kind of bhakti is freakin' nuclear .... as long as you're willing to want it badly *enough* ..... to ...
Just
Give
Up
...... because there's nothing to be gained; it's all about releasing now.
The input from Wayne, from Adamant and from Christi is all quite good ... and identical to what I'm saying; just slightly different words/vibe ... but essentially the same.
And know: even if the body-mind thinks thoughts or fights fears or whatever .... it has nothing to do with you.
Body-minds do that sort of thing; they're animals, literally; remembered animals .... dream animals. You don't have to overcome every last issue or item or feeling or fear ...... you just have to let go into the realization that no story is true, and that "the world" including the body-mind, has never involved "you" in the first place. You're free. So's the world. They don't even know about each other.
Only ideas bind.
"Let the world be the world / Let the dream unfurl / Let it run its own game
/ Let it dance with itself / I didn't put it here / Gonna let it ride" ~LIVE, Sun (http://www.last.fm/music/Live/_/Sun?autostart).
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Kirtanman,
This is how I understand the term nirvikalpa samadhi based on the way I have seen the term used:
quote:
As the mind begins to enter states of mental absorption, at first thought forms (mental formations) are still present. These states of absorption are called savikalpa samadhi.
Yes, same thing I'm saying.
quote:
When consciousness passes beyond all mental formations, it enters nirvikalpa samadhi. In nirvikalpa samadhi there is no longer any consciousness of the physical, astral or causal dimensions.
Yes, also the same thing I'm saying.
quote:
and the heart beat and breath are suspended. The state of nirvikalpa samadhi can only be sustained for a limited period of time before the physical body is dropped (about 22 days).
The statement above, on the other hand, is absolutely *not* what I'm saying .... not to mention that the Wikipedia contributor's opinions on nirvikalpa samadhi, which you're quoting, disqualifies anyone I've ever heard of, including myself, from having experienced nirvikalpa samadhi .... based on that definition.
Whereas the definition that I'm operating from, and have experienced, and essentially am experiencing ... is also quite widely accepted .... more widely, I'm guessing, than the Wikepedia entry (see below: Kashmir Shaivism delves deeply into the true nirvikalpa nature of the self).
quote:
Beyond nirvikalpa samadhi is sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, or naturally abiding samadhi without thought. In this state the Yogi is conscious of all the realms of being, can walk around and beg for food etc. and there is no time limit on the duration of the samadhi state.
... or write posts, or take a nap, or listen to music ..... or whatever.
... because the "samadhi state" is experienced *as* the self.
It's not a conceptual thing, ultimately.
It's reality.
[:)]
quote:
This would tie in with the Wikipedia article on samadhi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi
"Staying in Nirvikalpa Samadhi is effortless but even from this condition one must eventually return to ego-consciousness. Otherwise, this highest level of Samadhi leads to Nirvana, which means total Unity and the logical end of individual identity (and also death of the body).
I would say "death of identification with the body".
[:)]
quote:
However, it is entirely possible to stay in Nirvikalpa Samadhi and yet be fully functional in this world. This condition is known as Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi or Sahaja Samadhi. Only the truly Enlightened can be and remain spontaneously free.
I am happily and specifically not saying anything whatsoever about this one.
[:D]
quote:
In Nirvikalpa Samadhi, all attachment to the material world is dissolved. All awareness is withdrawn step by step from the physical, astral and causal bodies until self-realization or oneness with the soul is achieved.
Yes ... awareness is withdrawn ... it is experienced that it *can* be withdrawn ... but everyone's experience is different .... ultimately, it all amounts to the same:
Utter liberation from any sense of identification ... from any reflective consideration.
quote:
During this process, breathing ceases and the heart stops beating[citation needed].
A commendable idea (this citation, that is so clearly needed.)
[8D]
quote:
I believe that TI holds the same definition of nirvikalpa samadhi as I do (and Wikipedia) and explains why he was talking about nirvikalpa samadhi earlier in relation to the suspension of breath etc. and in terms of duration.
Seems that way.
Which is one problem with going with information, as opposed to experience: mental comparison can cause mind to think it's not experiencing as deeply as it actually is.
Mental comparison slows sadhana way down.
Ultimately, with each aspect of experience, up to and including the final drop into ... this .... it's like a switch flips ... and you can no longer "not know" ... no matter who wrote what when.
Now, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to evaluate your own experience as "it", either.
Experience is often misunderstood *because* it's evaluated.
Ultimately, being-consciousness-bliss serves as its own verification.
That's why practices, inquiry and discovering the true self in experience ... count for infinitely more than any written information or mental evaluation.
quote:
If you look carefully at the post you linked to by Yogani, you can see that he talks about rising nirvikalpa samadhi, mid-stage nirvikalpa samadhi, and about sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, but not about nirvikalpa samadhi itself.
Okay .... but, per the fact that sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi is the next phase .... how do so many people experience it, who missed out on the heartbeat stopping/dying part of nirvikalpa samadhi (as the Wikipedia definition says is needed?).
Maybe, like so much else, the "heartbeat stopping" means the disidentification with the body, and its heartbeat?
I can guarantee you that nirvikalpa samadhi doesn't have to do with dropping the body after any particular number of days ... both experientially, and per the fact that I'm pretty sure that "sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi" is a term coined by Ramana Maharshi .... and he didn't say anything about heartbeat stopping or dying .... just resting in the Self.
Once again:
Samadhi = "primal goodness", or "primal unification" (the "sam" prefix means both "good" and "unified").
Nirvikalpa = "without thought constructs".
Sahaja = "Spontaneous, or automatic".
And so, "sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi" is simply Sanskrit for the condition, in English, of freedom from identification with thought constructs.
That's it.
No dying necessary.
Some very respected texts (commentaries on the Shiva Sutras and the Yoga Spandakarika, the Tantraloka, commentaries on the Paratrisika Vivarana ... by sages as respected as Abhinavagupta, Kshemaraja and Jayaratha) .... give the same general definition of nirvikalpa samadhi, as I'm giving, yet again, here ... what other definition could they give?
It's what the words mean.
Discussing nirvikalpa samadhi as we are, is *exactly* like discussing "thought-free awareness" the same way.
"'Thought-free awareness' means 'awareness, free from thoughts'."
"But it says, right here in the Wikipedia article that in 'thought-free awareness', your heartbeat and breath stops, and you die and/or drop your body, and 'the enlightened one' does or doesn't do such and such {citation needed}."
"I'm still fairly confident that thought-free awareness is primarily about awareness free from thoughts."
I you still feel I'm missing something, please feel free to say so.
However, I might suggest that anyone reading just carefully consider the logic, here.
If the word says "cat" .... and someone who experiences cat, says "cat" .... maybe the cat doesn't have to die, or stop its heart, or fly to Mars, or whatever .... to be a bonafide cat.
"Y'know?"
[8D]
Occamananda's Razor:
A definition, however uninteresting, which matches the simple definition of the original words is more likely to be true, than any amount of additional definition to the contrary.
[8D]
quote:
That's why I referred TI to the passage in lesson 199 as a reference to nirvikalpa samadhi in the main lessons as the crown chakra is one of the portals through which nirvikalpa samadhi is realized.
Okay.
It just seems that the reference to form, in that lesson, negates the nirvikalpa-ness .... the Wikpedia article says this ... and that's all I was saying, too.
And, as you may have noticed, Yogani doesn't mention nirvikalpa samadhi in that lesson, at all.
With all the back-and-forth about definitions and what-not ... again, I just thought some clarification would be helpful .... especially since evaluating nirvikalpa samadhi based on any form or qualifications or evaluations may well cause this very pivotal actual experience to be missed or negated.
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is never even as much as a single thought away.
I've stated my view on this a few times, now ... I doubt I'll re-state it again; I just genuinely hope it helps clarify.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
PS- A couple of links on Samadhi / Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that may be of interest:
Wikipedia article on Nirvikalpa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvikalpa) (different from the article quoted above, originally posted/quoted by Christi).
An Article (http://www.realization.org/page/doc2/doc200.html): The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta, at Realization.org.
-
Hi Kirtanman, Christi and All...thank you for pointing me in this direction....there is a shift happening....I can feel it....and IT IS GOOD! [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Hoo-boy.
This is IT, in a nutshell, Brother Carson!
(And we've all asked it .... and asked it this way ..... often, repeatedly, and with great frustration ..... )
Well, thankfully there wasn't any frustration felt when asking the question.....only excitement....and a hope that I would finally *get* it once it was explained. When I first read your post Christi (about giving up) I was like: "Aw God.....come on......throw me a fricken bone here! [;)] Giving up?!? I've never been a quitter! I don't even know what 'giving up' MEANS! If that is what it takes, I have a LONG way to go." But then I remembered what it felt like to give up on my band. I had paid for an entire tour upfront, out of my own pocket/credit....a 4 week tour of the US and a 2 week tour of Japan....cost me upwards of $25K....and then, about a month before we were to leave, my bandmates told me they weren't going to go on it. They didn't want to tour with a drug addict anymore. The devastation, the feeling of hopelessness, the feeling of utter LOSS was completely monumental. This same day I chose to end my relationship of over 7 years, chose to get on the methadone program and was forced into bankruptcy. I gave up on "my life's goal" of having a successful relationship, musical career, and being able to maintain a stable existence as an addict. This is the only time I have EVER given up on anything, and it was the best thing that has ever happened to me....it (eventually) brought me here (among other good outcomes). I think of this now as "foreshadowing" [:D]. I understand what you mean that I have to give up and it not only makes sense, I can FEEL it! Fighting for enlightenment is futile! I have to let go (give up) to find it! Now it's on boy! [:D] There is no stopping me/it!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Imagine you're holding two *heavy* suitcases, one in each hand, and you're tired .... and tired of it .... you *hate* the freakin' suitcases.
I DO hate these fricken suitcases! I don't want them anymore! They are DEAD WEIGHT!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Giving up just looks like ..... giving up.
And FEELS like it too!!! I'm so excited! Gawd, I can hardly contain myself!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Have you ever felt totally defeated ..... totally .... just ... *done* with something?
See above.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
It feels like that .... but it doesn't have to involve unpleasant states.
Indeed! [:D] Nothing unpleasant about "this" giving up! MUCH different from my last one!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
You've cleared out a vast majority of the unpleasantly-experienced stuff, and quite possibly *all* of it that would make letting go into enlightenment more difficult.
(You wouldn't be experiencing life so consistently positively/blissfully, if this weren't largely or completely true.)
As you can see, per your responses to Wayne's post/questions ... you still do have some story .... and .... you see it as a story ... which is the part that matters.
So ... just back away from the Carson-story, if when it arises; if/when it doesn't ... enjoy the moment fully, as the moment, fully.
When there's a you *in* the moment, an artificial *idea* ... a story ... has been generated (or, more accurately, remembered).
If you do immerse in story for a little while, just let it go as you can ...... and don't look back.
No looking back.....Nothing to look back on! Everything is/was an illusion I was choosing to believe! Why? Who the eff knows!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
'Cause when you do turn back .... you turn into a pillar of salt.
You may know that story.
Oh yeah! Hahahaha!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Reality now is the very river of life we each and all actually are.
The river doesn't know it's the river .... it just IS the river.
This hit me hard..... I don't know I am what I am...I just AM! Screw trying to define it, screw trying to analyze it, just BE it! Wow.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Knowledge is *bondage* .... knowledge is reflection .,... knowing is living; knowing is being; we can't have it ... we can't get it ..... we are it.
I *GET* it!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
When I read through Wayne's questions, I laughed out loud at a few, well remembering them (the spider one ..... don't tell anyone ........... [:D]) .... which didn't fade until fairly recently ..... 'long about the time of this ... shift ... I've been referring to .... "Hm".
The secret is safe with me [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Now, it's like (reading those questions) ..... they feel almost familiar ....... almost ..... but there's not even quite the ability to feel like I can "get" what that whole thing (personal self, story, needs, wants, fears, hopes, regrets, judgments, etc.) was about ...... it's just gone.
Can't wait to forget it ALL!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Even enlightenment; even Self ...... I could truly care less about any of that ... it just doesn't matter.
All that matter is THIS! I *GET* it!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
It really does dissolve.
And all that ego-ice melts into the flowing of reality, now.
Before, I had a life.
Now, I'm living unbound.
I wanted to say "working on it!" but.....I now see that there is no one to work on anything....there is nothing to work on! It's all illusion I've been holding on to.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
What melts the ice?
Not believing in any of the story .... no matter what.
If there's believing ..... let it go; move on.
Every moment is a new universe, now.
Reborn moment after moment after moment ad infinitum!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
All story is artificial overlay.
AND pointless!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And I can feel how bad you want it .... that kind of bhakti is freakin' nuclear .... as long as you're willing to want it badly *enough* ..... to ...
Just
Give
Up
I DO, I DO, I DOOOOOOOOO!!!!! I GIVE UP! No more fighting!
There is some serious LAUGHTER AND CRYING (with joy) here right now.....it's so damn....FUNNY!!!! My wife is looking at me like I'm completely nuts and she should take me to the mental hospital [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
...... because there's nothing to be gained; it's all about releasing now.
Stop trying....I *GET* it now!
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And know: even if the body-mind thinks thoughts or fights fears or whatever .... it has nothing to do with you.
What me!?!? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Body-minds do that sort of thing; they're animals, literally; remembered animals .... dream animals. You don't have to overcome every last issue or item or feeling or fear ...... you just have to let go into the realization that no story is true, and that "the world" including the body-mind, has never involved "you" in the first place. You're free. So's the world. They don't even know about each other.
This has all been a dream....a really painful, silly dream....time to WAKE UP!!!
Wow.
Thank you, and you and you and you and............
Wow.
Thank you.
Love.
[^]
P.S> No "special claims" here....but this was a BIG revelation.
All I can say is Wow, and laugh my fricken ass off[:D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
There is some serious LAUGHTER AND CRYING (with joy) here right now.....it's so damn....FUNNY!!!! [:D]
"Real men use paper towels."
~Wayne Wirs
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
All I can say is Wow, and laugh my fricken ass off[:D]
VishmayoyogabhumikaH
Shiva Sutras 1.12
"The predominant state of such a yogi is one of joy-filled amazement."
[:D]
[:)]
_/\\_
-
Hi Christi and Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I believe that TI holds the same definition of nirvikalpa samadhi as I do (and Wikipedia) and explains why he was talking about nirvikalpa samadhi earlier in relation to the suspension of breath etc. and in terms of duration.
...
That's why I referred TI to the passage in lesson 199 as a reference to nirvikalpa samadhi in the main lessons as the crown chakra is one of the portals through which nirvikalpa samadhi is realized.
Christi
Yes, I've understood nirvikalpa samadhi to be "suspension of breath, no heart beat etc" because that is the Kriya definition from the Self Realization Fellowship lessons (Yogananda):
quote:
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is sometimes spelled Nirbikalpa Samadhi
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is achieved through the advanced and prolonged practice of Kriya Yoga and is the state of oneness with atman - the self or soul.
through the complete practice of Kriya Yoga and relevant teachings - all attachments to material world and all karma is dissolved. then in an advanced session of Kriya Yoga all awareness is withdrawn step by step from physical body, astral body, causal body until self realization or oneness with soul is achieved.
During the progress of above steps - breathing ceases, heart activity stops completely. Aware and fully conscious oneness with soul is then achieved in a most loving way and all cells of physical body are flooded with an ocean of divine love and divine bliss for any period of duration - hours, days, weeks until kriya yogi is shifting his awareness from soul back to physical body.
Kirtanman said:
quote:
That's why practices, inquiry and discovering the true self in experience ... count for infinitely more than any written information or mental evaluation.
Kirtanman, I disagree. It is better to rely both on experience and knowledge because the realization of experience by the mind can only be gotten through memory, unless one has access to the akashic records or the giant akasha space which is beyond. Further, only a Master, according to what I've learned, has the maturity and capability to bring back that knowledge and commit it to writing. Those who have ears, let them hear.. :)
Thanks to Kirtanman referring to the correct name of the author of "Merging With Siva", I found this ebook (when I verified that that was his other name) of the different states of samadhi, nirvikalpa included.
So, now I'd like to point out a few things:
The book is entitled "The Summits Of God-Life: Samadhi And Siddhi"
Here is the link:
http://www.srichinmoylibrary.com/books/0141/
quote:
Question: What is the lower samadhi?
Sri Chinmoy: There are various minor samadhis, and among the minor samadhis, savikalpa samadhi happens to be the highest. Right after savikalpa comes nirvikalpa samadhi, but there is a great yawning gulf between savikalpa and nirvikalpa . However, even though savikalpa samadhi is one step below nirvikalpa , we do not use the term ‘lower’. We do not call savikalpa samadhi lower than nirvikalpa ; they are two radically different samadhis. Again, there is something even beyond nirvikalpa samadhi called sahaja samadhi. But savikalpa and nirvikalpa samadhi are the most well-known samadhis.
In savikalpa samadhi, for a short period of time you lose all human consciousness. In this state the conception of time and space is altogether different. With the human time you cannot judge; with the human way of looking at space you cannot judge. In that samadhi, for an hour or two hours you are completely in another world. You see there that almost everything is done. Here in this world there are many desires still unfulfilled in yourself and in others. Millions of desires are not fulfilled, and millions of things remain to be done. But when you are in savikalpa samadhi, you see that practically everything is done; you have nothing to do. You are only an instrument. If you are used, well and good; otherwise, things are all done. But from savikalpa samadhi everybody has to return to ordinary consciousness.
Even in savikalpa samadhi there are grades. Just as there are brilliant students and poor students in the same class in school, so also in savikalpa samadhi some aspirants reach the highest grade, while less aspiring seekers reach a lower or a middle rung of the ladder, where everything is not so clear and vivid as on the highest level.
In savikalpa samadhi there are thoughts and ideas coming from various angles, but they do not affect you. While you are meditating, you remain unperturbed, and your inner being functions in a dynamic and confident manner. But when you are a little higher, when you have become one with the soul in nirvikalpa samadhi, there will be no ideas or thoughts at all. Here nature’s dance stops. There is no nature, only infinite Peace and Bliss. The Knower and the Known have become one. Everything is tranquil. Here you enjoy a supremely divine, all-pervading, self-amorous ecstasy. You become the object of enjoyment, you become the enjoyer and you become the enjoyment itself.
Nirvikalpa</I> samadhi is the highest samadhi that most spiritual Masters attain, and then only if they have achieved realisation. It lasts for a few hours or a few days, and then one has to come down. When one comes down, what happens? Very often one forgets his own name. One forgets his own age. He cannot speak properly. But through continued practice, gradually one becomes able to come down from nirvikalpa samadhi and immediately function in a normal way.
There were spiritual Masters in the hoary past who attained nirvikalpa samadhi and did not come down. They maintained their highest samadhi and found it impossible to enter into the world atmosphere and work like human beings. One cannot operate in the world while in that state of consciousness; it is simply impossible.
Generally, when one enters into nirvikalpa samadhi, one does not want to come back into the world again. If one stays there for eighteen or twenty-one days, there is every possibility that he will leave the body. But there is a divine dispensation. If the Supreme wants a particular soul to work here on earth, even after twenty-one or twenty-two days, the Supreme takes the individual into another channel of dynamic, divine consciousness and has him return to the earth-plane to act.
Sahaja samadhi is by far the highest type of samadhi. In this samadhi one is in the highest consciousness, but at the same time he is working in the gross physical world. One maintains the experience of nirvikalpa samadhi while simultaneously entering into earthly activities. One has become the soul and at the same time is utilising the body as a perfect instrument. In sahaja samadhi one walks like an ordinary human being. One eats. One does the usual things that an ordinary human being does. But in the inmost recesses of his heart he is surcharged with divine illumination. When one has this sahaja samadhi, one becomes the Lord and Master of Reality. One can go at his sweet will to the Highest and then come down to the earth consciousness to manifest.
After achieving the highest type of realisation, on very rare occasions one is blessed with sahaja samadhi. Very few spiritual Masters have achieved this state—only one or two. For sahaja samadhi, the Supreme’s infinite Grace is required, or one has to be very powerful and lucky. Sahaja samadhi comes only when one has established inseparable oneness with the Supreme, or when one wants to show, on rare occasions, that he is the Supreme. He who has achieved sahaja samadhi and remains in this samadhi, consciously and perfectly manifests God at every second, and is thus the greatest pride of the transcendental Supreme.
The book is quite fascinating. There is so much written there. Sri Chinmoy seems to be quite the accomplished person..
quote:
Question: What is the difference between samadhi and God-realisation?
Sri Chinmoy: Samadhi is a realm of consciousness. Many people have entered into samadhi, but realisation comes only when we have become one with the highest Absolute. We can enter into some samadhis without realising the Highest.
Entering samadhi is like knowing the alphabet, but realisation is like having a Ph.D. There is no comparison between samadhi and realisation. Samadhi is a state of consciousness in which one can stay for a few hours or a few days. After twenty-one days usually the body does not function. But once one has achieved realisation, it lasts forever. And in realisation, one’s whole consciousness has become inseparably and eternally one with God.
There are three stages of samadhi: savikalpa samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja samadhi. savikalpa samadhi is an exalted and glowing state of consciousness, whereas realisation is a conscious, natural and manifesting state of consciousness. When realisation dawns, the seeker enjoys freedom from the human personality and human individuality. He is like a tiny drop of water which enters into the ocean. Once it enters, it becomes the ocean. At that time, we do not see the personality or the individuality of the one drop. When one realises the highest Truth, the finite in him enters into the infinite and realises and achieves the infinite as its very own. Once realisation has taken place, a Master can easily enter into savikalpa samadhi. Nirvikalpa samadhi, too, is not difficult for a God-realised soul to attain. Only sahaja samadhi, which is the highest type of samadhi, is a problem, even for the very highest God-realised souls.
and this one:
quote:
Question: If a Master is in sahaja samadhi all the time, does that mean nirvikalpa samadhi is not fulfilling to him?
Sri Chinmoy: If one is in sahaja samadhi, in one sense nothing can fulfil him because he is already fulfilled in his inner life. As an individual, he has gone beyond fulfilment. When one is in sahaja samadhi, there is nothing more for him to achieve or learn. The Master may not be a carpenter, but he has such oneness with the universe that he can identify with a carpenter and make himself feel in his own living consciousness that he is that carpenter. At that time, the Master’s being and the carpenter’s whole being are totally one.
And, again, here is a reference to the light. I still think the light is not just scenery..
quote:
Question: In the highest state of samadhi when you look at other human beings, what kind of consciousness do you feel in them?
Sri Chinmoy: When one is in the highest transcendental samadhi, the physical personality of others disappears. We do not see others as human beings. We see only a flow of consciousness, like a river that is entering into the ocean. He who is in the highest trance becomes the ocean, and he who is in a lower state of consciousness is the river. The river flows into the sea and becomes one with the sea. The one who is enjoying the highest samadhi does not notice any individuality or personality in the others. A human being who is not in this state of samadhi is a flowing river of consciousness, while the one who is in samadhi has become the sea itself, the sea of Peace and Light.
If one becomes the sea of Peace and Light in samadhi, and there are Vedantic teachings that specifically point out the stages of realizing the light and have incorporated the light as part of their practices, how can the light just be scenery?
:)
TI
-
Hi Carson,
quote:
So what does "giving up" entail/look like?
Well brother, coming from one no different than you, for what it's worth here is something on 'giving up' from a post made in the topic emc, started on 'Surrender' ... quote:
I understand what you mean. As things (letting go, practices, etc.) have progressed over the years, I reached a point and realization that "I" can't surrender, "I" don't know how, "I" can't do it. I realized all my surrender had just become a more subtle way of 'doing' initiated by my will, ways and habits. Over time an inner tension of frustration built. At times it was unbearable. Finally, something broke and shifted and something very deep at the core truly realized I can't do it, don't know how, won't ever know how. It was in that moment without intention or intiation by "I"-"mind"-"will", I gave up. I just stopped trying.
It wasn't so much a conscious letting go as I just gave up. All my strategies were worthless. Heart (of itself) prayed (wordless), something like "Lord, whatever You want". In big part at least bigger than any time prior, I gave up my I-know-how, I-can-do-it agenda, control and expectations. That was a turning point. "I" did not initiate it. In the weeks and months prior to that, in addition to the traditional practices of meditation, spinal breathing, samyama, etc., prayer became (and remains) very important. Not a mind or ego-I initiated prayer, but the silent-feeling sort that originates from the depth of our being and Heart. In time, bhakti and the realization that we are clueless reach new levels sufficient to create an opening that allows Source's Love to come in and dissolve the resistance and patterns that keep us in our shell.
I have found that the process of surrender never ends. As the knots of our being dissolve, it has cycles with variations of ups and downs. For me it's a process of learning to trust Source completely and continuously with every aspect of my life, of realizing how loved we are and that we are all part of the Love. Over time, it is becoming easier to trust, as daily life experiences and interactions with others validate the recognition that Source always gives the best without us having to control or manage every detail. In a way it's quite humorous. The ever-deepening realization that I don't know anything (giving up my knowledge) and can't do anything (giving up my will) creates the space to receive the blessings and love of Source. Similar to what Yogani said our inner silence and willingness to accept and embrace the gifts from Source help pave the way. True knowledge is the love and will of Source being freely expressed and shared through each of us.
Silence, Love and Light,
Steve
-
@Kirtanman: Actually it's: "Tissues? Real men use paper towels when they cry like a baby." [:)] http://waynewirs.com/2009/dark-night-of-the-soul/
@CarsonZi: I know my "Why You Suck" post was designed to be funny, but my following points are dead serious.
Your goal isn't to ACCEPT your personal self, it is to SEPARATE You from your personal self. Separate You (capital Y) from you (little y).
1. It's not about making your personal life better, it's about seeing how it sucks--and just as importantly--how it may suck in the future. It's not about FIXING those points.
2. It's not about THINKING how it sucks, but FEELING how it sucks.
3. Most importantly, it is about TOUCHING the personal self. Touch it, pull away, touch it, pull away. Like touching the table, pulling away, touching the table, pulling away. The more often you consciously touch it (by seeing it and feeling it) the easier it will be to REALIZE that you are NOT IT.
In your case (and for anyone else reading this, think of a time when you had a profound realization), you didn't DROP meth because you were trying to make your meth life better, or by trying to FIX your meth life, nor did you drop it by THINKING about dropping it. You dropped your meth life because you REALIZED it sucked. You FELT how it sucked. You SAW how it sucked. You REALIZED that you weren't the "Meth Life" but that the "Meth Life" LIVED IN YOU and you dropped it (see the end of my "How I Awoke to Enlightenment Video" http://waynewirs.com/videos/ about my Frog Meditation Master [:)] - I realized the frog was just an empty room, where I was an empty room that CONTAINED thoughts (the personal self)).
FYI: There's a photo of my Frog Master here http://waynewirs.com/2009/sitting-frog/, though as you can see from the blog post, I wasn't aware of how profound he would affect my life at the time.
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that TI holds the same definition of nirvikalpa samadhi as I do (and Wikipedia) and explains why he was talking about nirvikalpa samadhi earlier in relation to the suspension of breath etc. and in terms of duration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems that way.
Which is one problem with going with information, as opposed to experience: mental comparison can cause mind to think it's not experiencing as deeply as it actually is.
Mental comparison slows sadhana way down.
What can I say? Only that the description of nirvikalpa samadhi that I quoted from the Wikipedia entry fits exactly with my own experience of nirvikalpa samadhi. The description of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi given fits exactly with my own experience of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. I don't see any need to question it based on experience.
In lesson 199 the description given is this:
We may be gone and not know where we were. Or we may have some celestial visions. When we do come back, we are somehow new, illuminated, radiating like never before. That is the beginning of the experience in the awakened crown. [Yogani]
As the consciousness rises through the layers of being, it travels through the causal realms which are the realms of infinite white light which Yogani refers to elsewhere. This is a form of samvikalpa samadhi, and beyond this (beyond the causal realms), the consciousness merges with the absolute, in nirvikalpa samadhi.
quote:
Ultimately, with each aspect of experience, up to and including the final drop into ... this .... it's like a switch flips ... and you can no longer "not know" ... no matter who wrote what when.
Come on! [:)]
Whatever happened to Adya's: "It isn't even funny how much I don't know"?
Everyone has experiences on the path, and for everyone there are aspects of the path which they haven't encountered yet, even if they think they have arrived. Those aspects which have not yet been encountered are the unknown. Expansion into the unknown is the continued unfolding of the journey. That's why the adventure of enlightenment never ends.
Christi
-
When there are knee-jerk reactions.......like anger....like resentment....irritability......emotional pain....sorrow...hatred
All these.....arise as divine expressions of love. It is the conditioned aspect inside......and yet....it is not who we are not. We are these too.....
Inside every expression there ever is.....is the current of love..... Everything rides on....is permeated...by love. The conditioned....."that which sucks"...... is love longing to come home to itself.....protecting its divine core....out of love....and a little misunderstanding.....eons of everything the body has carried.....
My body needs tenderness ......[:X]....not dicipline
Be gentle with it......it is divine in its essence....and it is doing its best to protect that essence......not seeing that all is already well.....
So much compassion is needed.......
So much harshness and warring has taken place.....all these strategies......and that never worked here.
Now be gentle.....
Say yes.....and relax instead
So here......nothing is shun.
Yes to every attachment
Yes to every pain
Yes to every joy
What else is there to do....?
It is already here no?
Om, my heart
Om, my heart
Let me hold you tenderly
Like I hold my children
Bringing forth all content openly
I am looking lovingly
So nothing is forbidden
Om, my heart
Shining as the neverborn
As conscious, precious presence
Shining even as egoity
Not: “To be or not to be?”
That never was the question
Om, my heart
Who is holding who?
Choiceless am I resting
As – and in – eternally:
Om, my heart,
THAT which is my Self
-
Hi Steve, Wayne, Kirtanman and All [:D]
Thanks Steve for the quote....I totally "get" it now....how to "Give Up" I mean. It may sound cliche, but I now KNOW that it is the "trying" for enlightenment that keeps it at bay. It is the need to "get" somewhere, to "get" to something....There really is nowhere to get to and nothing to be other then This right Now. I knew these words in my head before, but something clicked last night that made it REAL in the Heart. A "heart understanding" if you will. I half expected to wake up this morning "back as the old Carson-self" but thankfully that didn't happen....and I see that idea that I am not This as just an idea. I awoke this morning with a renewed vigor to just experience Life as it Is. I really don't care to be anything other then This right Now. I don't really know how else to say it. Something just clicked, and words "suck" [:o)] at describing it. I have no desire to describe it. I just want to continue to BE it. I couldn't wipe this s#$t - eater grin off my face if I tried. I think if I got punched in the nuts right now all I could do is laugh while I winced at the pain....it's just all so FUNNY now! I can't believe how stupid I was before....how driven to be something I was NOT before. And so dead set on it to! What a silly boy I was [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
@CarsonZi: I know my "Why You Suck" post was designed to be funny, but my following points are dead serious.
Hey Wayne [:D].....
I knew your post was meant to be funny, but I also knew that it was meant to help people/me see where they were "stuck" in the story. This worked. I took your post seriously, although it may not have seemed that way to you by my response. I did not take that post lightly. The "Failing Sucks" line was very helpful for me. I now realize that Failing doesn't Suck. Failing is AWESOME, just like everything else. Failing is what it Is and I have no desire to either Fail nor Succeed now. I am happy (ecstatic actually) to just exist regardless of Labels. All these labels of "This, That and The Other Thing" are obstacles to existence. Definition is seperation. Existence is Reality....regardless of the labels we attach to It.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
Your goal isn't to ACCEPT your personal self, it is to SEPARATE You from your personal self. Separate You (capital Y) from you (little y).
Actually Wayne...there is no Goal. All is Here Right Now. There is nowhere to get to and nothing to Be other this This right Now. I don't need to "Separate You (capital Y) from you (little y)"...all seperation is Illusion.....All seperation is, well, seperation. Wholeness is Wholeness, and that is what This Is.....without the labels, definitions, ideas, beliefs etc etc....Unity. And I don't NEED any more goals. There is nothing to strive for as that keeps the seperation intact. I see it now.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
1. It's not about making your personal life better, it's about seeing how it sucks--and just as importantly--how it may suck in the future. It's not about FIXING those points.
No, it is not about making my personal life better....don't know that I said that though. If I did, I was talking from seperation. And no, it is not about Fixing anything either. It is about Being as You Are.....and giving up on trying to get somewhere. There is nowhere but Here.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
2. It's not about THINKING how it sucks, but FEELING how it sucks.
I'd say it is all about Feeling how AWESOME Life is when you forget about trying to be somewhere, be something. It is about Knowing that "trying" is an ostacle. Trying indicates that something isn't perfect....and there is nothing that is not perfect right here right now.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
3. Most importantly, it is about TOUCHING the personal self. Touch it, pull away, touch it, pull away. Like touching the table, pulling away, touching the table, pulling away. The more often you consciously touch it (by seeing it and feeling it) the easier it will be to REALIZE that you are NOT IT.
I agree that this may be a good practice to help one discover the Unity from a lace of Duality, but if there is no personal self, there is nothing to touch. There is nothing to touch.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
In your case (and for anyone else reading this, think of a time when you had a profound realization), you didn't DROP meth because you were trying to make your meth life better, or by trying to FIX your meth life, nor did you drop it by THINKING about dropping it. You dropped your meth life because you REALIZED it sucked. You FELT how it sucked. You SAW how it sucked. You REALIZED that you weren't the "Meth Life" but that the "Meth Life" LIVED IN YOU and you dropped it
Just for clarities sake: When the METHAMPHETAMINE addiction was dropped it was dropped because I no longer could get a needle into a vein anywhere other then in the groin (due to all the scar tissue on every other vein), and shooting into my groin scared the Bejezus outta me. When the METHADONE addiction was dropped (there is a BIG difference between methamphetamine and methadone...google them if you don't know the difference), it was because Spinal Breathing Pranayama cleaned my nervous system out and made it possible. When I got on the methadone program, yes, it was because I realized that being an opiate addict sucked. I knew this, saw this, felt this. But just dropping that addiction is not PHYSICALLY possible without going through Hell on Earth for about 16-24 months (worst withdrawal symptoms known to man). Dropping the methadone addiction had nothing to do with me realizing I wasn't my methadone addiction...it was pure Grace. Not that any of this matters, I just thought a little clarification was in order.
I just want to thank everyone here for taking the time to point me towards That which I Am. I see it now, I feel it now, I AM This Now. And God does it feel perfect. I don't know what the heck I was waiting for. Thank you All, thank you Self.
Love.
[^]
-
Hi Christi :)
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
...
What can I say? Only that the description of nirvikalpa samadhi that I quoted from the Wikipedia entry fits exactly with my own experience of nirvikalpa samadhi. The description of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi given fits exactly with my own experience of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. I don't see any need to question it based on experience.
...
If you don't mind me asking, how did you enter nirvikalpa samadhi? What is the technique/practice? Was it part of a 'letting go' practice or a continual concentration type of practice?
:)
TI
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
What can I say? Only that the description of nirvikalpa samadhi that I quoted from the Wikipedia entry fits exactly with my own experience of nirvikalpa samadhi. The description of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi given fits exactly with my own experience of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. I don't see any need to question it based on experience.
Including the breath stopping // heartbeat stopping?
Those two items are my concerns, as I can see them misleading people ... a concern I know you share generally, even if we don't always agree on specific items.
[:)]
These items are not requirements for nirvikalpa samadhi.
They're also not within my experience, the experience of anyone I've ever known.
quote:
In lesson 199 the description given is this:
We may be gone and not know where we were. Or we may have some celestial visions. When we do come back, we are somehow new, illuminated, radiating like never before. That is the beginning of the experience in the awakened crown. [Yogani]
As the consciousness rises through the layers of being, it travels through the causal realms which are the realms of infinite white light which Yogani refers to elsewhere. This is a form of samvikalpa samadhi, and beyond this (beyond the causal realms), the consciousness merges with the absolute, in nirvikalpa samadhi.
Maybe I missed something ... but it sounded as though you were connecting the information in Lesson 199 directly with nirvikalpa samadhi, somehow ... and all I'm saying is that there is no direct connection.
Yogani doesn't mention the word samadhi in that lesson.
And so, again, my concern is that readers might make a connection which doesn't exist, between the information in Lesson 199, and nirvikalpa samadhi.
The exact description given in the lesson isn't of savikalpa samadhi, either, unless there are other definitions of savikalpa samadhi bouncing around, too.
Basically:
Savikalpa samadhi is when the distinction between subject, object and perception vanish.
Nirvikalpa samadhi is when subject, object and perception vanish.
In the Yoga Sutras, these same samadhis are called samprajnata (savikalpa) and asamprajnata (nirvikalpa), respectively (if anyone is interested on checking any of this out for themselves).
quote:
Ultimately, with each aspect of experience, up to and including the final drop into ... this .... it's like a switch flips ... and you can no longer "not know" ... no matter who wrote what when.
quote:
Come on! [:)]
Whatever happened to Adya's: "It isn't even funny how much I don't know"?
Everyone has experiences on the path, and for everyone there are aspects of the path which they haven't encountered yet, even if they think they have arrived. Those aspects which have not yet been encountered are the unknown. Expansion into the unknown is the continued unfolding of the journey. That's why the adventure of enlightenment never ends.
Christi
I think you may have misunderstood my intent, per my words quoted above .... apologies if I wasn't clear.
I simply meant that significant experience instills a comfort and confidence which overrides written information ... something I'm guessing we can all agree upon.
If you found a Wikipedia article that stated that "inner silence" in meditation had to involve cessation of the breath, and cessation of heartbeat .... would you not still feel you experience inner silence, despite the best intention of the Wikipedia contributor to educate you?
I'm just saying the same thing about nirvikalpa samadhi.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
PS- Adya's quote was more like "I know so much less than I did when I started teaching" .... his point being that "knowledge as object" .... "knowing about" ... is vastly over-rated.
"Jnanam Bandhah" - Knowledge is Bondage - as the Shiva Sutras say.
-
Hi Kirtanman and Christi, :)
Christi wrote:
quote:
As the consciousness rises through the layers of being, it travels through the causal realms which are the realms of infinite white light which Yogani refers to elsewhere.
I had an interesting experience tonight that led me to that "which Yogani refers to elsewhere". So I thought I'd expand on what Christi wrote about (bolded above).
I decided to do my stock AYP routine, yes, even with the I AM meditation.. I did prayers, bhastrika, Spinal breathing, and the mantra (and Samyama). But this time, I didn't focus on the mantra or the gaps. Instead, I just listened to the echo of the mantra as it reverberated in silence. I really tried not to focus on the light, actually, it isn't that hard because the ball of light is closer to the back center of the head. But even when ignoring the light, that light is so bright that it lights up the front of my third eye region, kind of like moonbeams or a radiant glow.
Anyway, listening to the echo of the mantra seemed to really help me establish inner silence quickly. Towards the end of the 35 minutes, I started seeing what appeared to be a small eye-ball off into the distance, in front of my face just off to the left. I just ignored it and it remained there. I can still see it. It looks like an eyeball, with rings and a kind of star in the centre. There is also what appeard to be a black background or curtain around the eyeball, like someone is peeping through a hole in a blanket with one eye.
So, I did a search on Yogani's lessons and I found the star lesson (again), lesson 92 here: http://www.aypsite.com/plus/92.html
I had read that lesson a few times before, but this time, I found confirmation about the light in my head from Yogani.
quote:
Maybe some will never see a tunnel or star. Maybe they just zoom through at some point and it is all pure white light. Or maybe some other kinds of colors, and then the white light. Maybe no white light, and just more and more ecstasy, until one day, boom! And white light is everywhere inside and outside the body. It can happen many different ways, depending on the unique purification process going on in each person.
So now I think the light is a good thing, it is something that happens to you along the path. I don't believe it is a run-of-mill-vision, and as such doesn't fall into Yogani's advice as he mentions here:
quote:
There is a tendency in some approaches to get into some particular vision. To have that vision means everything. It doesn't have to be like that. The manifestation of truth won't be exactly the same for everyone. So, picking a specific vision to strive for could be a mistake.
Funny how the star has led me back to the light.
:)
TI
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
If one becomes the sea of Peace and Light in samadhi, and there are Vedantic teachings that specifically point out the stages of realizing the light and have incorporated the light as part of their practices, how can the light just be scenery?
:)
TI
Hi TI,
The subtle light seen in meditation is scenery.
Light as a metaphor for pure awareness, pure being, per the excerpt you quoted above .... is far beyond/before any sense of self, any objects in awareness, or any perception.
And good post ... and interesting quotes; I do read them all.
I'm not that familiar with Sri Chinmoy, but I know he was very well known.
It seems that monastic yogis have a certain way of talking about samadhis and enlightenment, which can make it sound as those these things are far beyond what I say they are.
This isn't the case.
I used less lofty language .... but am talking about the same things.
Important Clarification:
Scenery doesn't mean "bad" or "minor" ... it's (literally) a way of looking at experiences, so that they don't slow you down. The light you're currently experiencing is FAR beyond what most meditators ever experience (this system is known as AYP for a reason (I just mean that we're clear on what's available beyond the light you experience, currently ...[:)]) .... but wouldn't you like to experience the "light inside and outside the body" ... as Yogani describes?
I know the light inside the head ... it's beautiful, powerful and staggering .... and does a lot of good ... it's just a minor precursor of what can be experienced .... and so, viewing it as scenery just helps you not to focus on it too much. Viewing even the most intense experiences as scenery, just help you where you really want to go, faster, that's all.
What this is all really about is infinitely more vast ... infinitely more beautiful ... infinitely more real ... than any experiences; it's about this .... this that we each and all ever are, now.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
quote:
There is a tendency in some approaches to get into some particular vision. To have that vision means everything. It doesn't have to be like that. The manifestation of truth won't be exactly the same for everyone. So, picking a specific vision to strive for could be a mistake.
Funny how the star has led me back to the light.
:)
TI
Hi TI,
I was just reading this post ... and saying .... in a truly positive way .... "Yeah ... Yeah .... Yeah!"
As In: this is exactly the type of experiencing I've been hoping you'd tune into ... the listening .... the noticing the silence more.
This type of approach .... as you're experiencing .... is what opens things up, big time ... and almost immediately.
And again, as I just said in my other post to you:
Scenery isn't bad .... some secenery is beautiful and jaw-dropping .... it's just that it's still, relatively-speaking .... scenery.
It has nothing to do with the destination .... and isn't important in and of itself.
Scenery can even be a bit useful from a milestone standpoint .... but it's just not important in and of itself.
Not all systems teach this .... but in order to experience enlightenment, all attachment to form, especially on the subjective side (the "you you think you are") must be released, or at least greatly relaxed.
If that "you" is focusing highly on visions and whatnot .... that very dynamic keeps that "you" in place.
Whereas if you say "Wow! Awesome vision! But just return to to practices; keep inquiring, keep going .... before super long *you* might be writing some of these books people cite in online forums.
[8D]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
[:)]
PS- Adya's quote was more like "I know so much less than I did when I started teaching" .... his point being that "knowledge as object" .... "knowing about" ... is vastly over-rated.
"Jnanam Bandhah" - Knowledge is Bondage - as the Shiva Sutras say.
This sounds to me like-- the less you know( in the conventional sense),the better, i.e the more you know.
Or, Knowing nothing is freedom.That is, truly knowing.
So "knowledge as object" is phony knowledge,not real knowledge, a fiction of the mind.
So to truly know is to rest in pure (original) awareness.To throw all the props away,give up trying to uunderstand.
The limited kind of "Knowledge", that which demands understanding, tends to lead one to more suffering.
---
I am aware tantra/yoga is about transcending binary oppositions & the fallaciousness of that kind of philosophical thinking through finding unity in all, in all experience. So it is paradoxical- something can be true knowledge by not dressing itself up as such in that sense we mean.Beyond the straightjacket of logic & language etc.I have'nt read much of the literature & philosophy in jnan yoga, non-dualism,KS, the ancient scriptures and generally speaking, but there is an elegance and sophisticatiion in the intellectual paradox that is quite attractive and transcendent, at least for 'no-mind'( & mind if we cangive it a chance) if i can use that term.. I remember hearing something of Alan Watts - yes,'Intellectual Yoga' it was called- i know ,a bit dated perhaps, but that title sounded pretty hip when i first heard it a few years ago.An entertaining talker.Alot of you might have heard this one before but here it is anyway. I found it iinspiring at the time 3 years ago.
http://diydharma.org/intellectual-yoga-alan-watts A good intro. to jnana yoga.
Quote:- Alan Watts-mp3:-
""Learning to unthink,giving up on the symbolism,the words etc used to describe our experiences of the world,of what is going on.
Reality is unspeakable
Give up the seeking""
Unquote
etc
Of course alot of this won't carry much resonance without effective yoga practices.Then it can take on a deeper a and deeper profundity,& greater realisation. At this level we don't need someone to spell it out though( with a few little caveats in case you think you've come home in 'enlightenment terms where really you are only mildly awakenend).We just know. Our guru is right here.
I will say that my hunch is (based on little peeks/glimpses)that those that are enlightenened(even though i find that term liable to mislead and a bit of a wild turkey) don't say much( or in the sense of - i will tell you how things really are,it's just an attempt knowing full well the folly of it)- like describing the indescribable.And those that are probably just scratching the surface as that, those that talk,talk & talk-in fact they freq. cannot stop talking.
Like that saying those that know don't say & those that say,don't know.Of course folk would'nt discuss if they did'nt think discusssing held no worth.
I'm not really enlightened,honest... Am pretty good at self-realised talk though[:D]
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
What can I say? Only that the description of nirvikalpa samadhi that I quoted from the Wikipedia entry fits exactly with my own experience of nirvikalpa samadhi. The description of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi given fits exactly with my own experience of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. I don't see any need to question it based on experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including the breath stopping // heartbeat stopping?
Those two items are my concerns, as I can see them misleading people ... a concern I know you share generally, even if we don't always agree on specific items.
These items are not requirements for nirvikalpa samadhi.
They're also not within my experience, the experience of anyone I've ever known.
What I am saying is, that within Yoga, the terms nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja samadhi (or sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi) usually have certain meanings. These meanings are reflected in the wikipedia article that I mentioned. It seems to me that what you are describing as your own experiencing is what is normally refered to as sahaja samadhi (and occasionally as sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi). Nirvikalpa samadhi is usually a term used only for a very high state of samadhi where there is no longer awareness of the physical body, or any awareness of the astral or causal realms.
It seems to me that although we can say that we are experiencing something, or have experienced something, and can then speak about it from experience, we can't say that as we have never experienced something it doesn't exist. So to say: "I'm not experiencing that and neither is anyone I know, therefore it's not true" simply doesn't follow.
In nirvikalpa samadhi, there is no awareness of the physical body, so the breath rate and heart rate would be something that would have to be verified by someone else. There is also no awareness of time (as the appearance of time is something which only exists in the lower realms of manifestation).
I am not quite sure why the references to the suspension of the breath and heart beat should mislead anyone. It's kind of irelevant, after all, what does it matter? It is only really of concern to those not in a state of nirvikalpa samadhi who are around someone who is in a state of nirvikalpa samadhi. Having the knowledge that this can happen would be useful so that they would know not to call an ambulance for example.
Some people who have attained a high level of realization are able to choose the time of their death. When they are growing old, and they feel that they don't want to wait for their physical body to pack up completely, they can choose to leave the physical body. They do this by entering nirvikalpa samadhi and remaining in that state until the physical sheath is dropped. They often die sitting in the lotus position.
quote:
Maybe I missed something ... but it sounded as though you were connecting the information in Lesson 199 directly with nirvikalpa samadhi, somehow ... and all I'm saying is that there is no direct connection.
Yogani doesn't mention the word samadhi in that lesson.
And so, again, my concern is that readers might make a connection which doesn't exist, between the information in Lesson 199, and nirvikalpa samadhi.
It's quite possible to talk about samadhi (at any stage) without using the term samadhi. I often do.
Samvikalpa samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja samadhi are just terms, but having an understanding of the way in which terms are commonly used can help to facilitate discussion. Personally I have never heard anyone use the term nirvikalpa samadhi the way you use it, but that doesn't mean that nobody else uses it that way. I think Adyashanti uses the term "nirvikalpa samadhi" the way it is described in the wikipedia article I referenced, otherwise why would he say "nirvikalpa samadhi- big deal!" ? If nivikalpa samadhi was a description of living in original awareness, then he would have said: "nirvikalpa samadhi- you got it!". [:)]
Christi
-
Hi Christi :)
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
...
It is only really of concern to those not in a state of nirvikalpa samadhi who are around someone who is in a state of nirvikalpa samadhi. Having the knowledge that this can happen would be useful so that they would know not to call an ambulance for example.
...
You know, Ajahn Brahm tells a story about a meditator that went into a deep state of 'samadhi' and his wife found him on the floor. She thought he had died because there were no signs of life. The meditator was brought to the hospital by ambulance, sirens sounding with lots of noise and comotion. The meditator came to while he was on the examining table. He was absolutely stunned as he had no idea how he had magically appeared in the hospital. Needless to say, the doctors, nurses and his wife were also stunned.
Can you imagine waking up to find embalmers in action?
One of my fears is that, living alone, if I go into such a state and it lasts for days, I might miss work and someone might come and break my front door down.. :)
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Can you imagine waking up to find embalmers in action?
Or waking up 3 days later to find yourself in a tombe covered only with a shroud and a stone across the entrance? [:)]
quote:
One of my fears is that, living alone, if I go into such a state and it lasts for day I might miss work and someone might come and break my front door down.. :)
I should put your fears away. Usually, initial experiences of nirvikalpa samadhi last for much shorter durations than that. Someone would need to be very experienced at entering high states of samadhi to remain for such long durations in nirvikalpa samadhi. So nobody will be breaking your door down unless you are expecting it (not fearing it). Then of course, you could always take a week or two off work (arranged beforehand). [:)]
Ironically, fear is one of the primary forces for preventing someone from entering samadhi states, and also one of the primary factors in bringing someone out of a samadhi state once they are in it.
Someone once said that there are only two forces in the universe, fear and love. Fear pulls us down (away from the divine) and love raises us up (from the dead).
Christi
-
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
...
I was just reading this post ... and saying .... in a truly positive way .... "Yeah ... Yeah .... Yeah!"
As In: this is exactly the type of experiencing I've been hoping you'd tune into ... the listening .... the noticing the silence more.
This type of approach .... as you're experiencing .... is what opens things up, big time ... and almost immediately.
...
I think the truth here is that intense listening stills the mind. I'm glad you agree. Thanks!
When I listen intently for a few seconds, my breathing stops, my mind stops and I can see with my ears. Since all form is vibration/motion, it makes sense to me that you can 'see it with your ears'.
I had been doing various forms of intense listening ever since I studied Tolle. My first lesson in this was Tolle's game of asking one's self "I wonder what my next thought will be" followed by intense listening. Most of the time the first thought that would pop into my head was "Breathe!" It is a real art to listen intently and let breathing occur. The only way seems to be to split your attention between the listening and taking control of the breath through will. This seems to be the only way to prolong a lesser version of intense listening. I say lesser because, your attention becomes split between listening and breathing. I think this is the basis for nirvikalpa samadhi.
The other example from Tolle is "listening to a meditation bell as it dies back into nothing". As you follow the sound of the bell, as it gets softer and nearly disappears, you have to crank up your alert awareness in order to follow it. When the bell's sound is extinguished, only your alert attention remains. And if you don't breathe after that you can extend that alert awareness for a short time.
After a while, that same alert awareness happens on it's own at different times of the day, and for me, especially when sitting in nature. Probably that is what Yogani means by "inner silence" gradually expanding to be 24/7. I think I am finally understanding all of this. :)
One method for experiencing savikalpa samadhi that works for me is this (again from the Hawaiian monks):
link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_ch-38.html
quote:
Now, to bring the sushumna force into power, listen to both tones simultaneously. It may take you about five minutes to hear both tones at the same time. Next, follow both tonal vibrations from the ears into the center of the cranium, where they will meet and blend into a slightly different sound, as two notes, say, a "C" and an "E," blend into a chord. The energy of the nadis is then flowing in a circle, and you will enter the golden yellow light of the sushumna current. Play with this light and bask in its radiance, for in it is your bloom. The unfoldment progresses from a golden yellow to a clear white light. Should you see a blue light, know that you are in the pingala current. If you see a pink light, that is the color of the ida. Just disregard them and seek for the white light in the tone of the combined currents until finally you do not hear the tone anymore and you burst into the clear white light. Thus you enter savikalpa samadhi -- samadhi with seed, or consciousness, which is the culmination of this particular practice of contemplation.
However, it has never occured to me to do intense listening during mantra repetition and listen to the sound of the mantra as it's echo dissipates back into emptiness/presence/stillness. Thanks for confirming this.
:)
TI
-
Hi Christi :)
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
...
I should put your fears away. Usually, initial experiences of nirvikalpa samadhi last for much shorter durations than that. Someone would need to be very experienced at entering high states of samadhi to remain for such long durations in nirvikalpa samadhi. So nobody will be breaking your door down unless you are expecting it (not fearing it). Then of course, you could always take a week or two off work (arranged beforehand). [:)]
...
Can't remember the source but I read somewhere that the best thing to bring someone back from nirvikalpa samadhi is a meditation bell. The sound of the bell is supposedly the only thing that penetrates deep enough through the layers of the self to catch hold of 'you' when you're gone and bring you out of it.
How about setting up a timer that rings a tibetan meditation bell at then end of the day, every day... or how about leaving a sign and a bell near wherever you are meditating that says:
"If I appear to be dead, please ring this bell a few times before calling an ambulance!"
Maybe that's why the Buddhists ring a meditation bell at the end of the meditation session... no dead people allowed... gets in the way of the janitors... time to come back to life :)
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
I never sit down to meditate without my Tibetan ringing bell alarm clock and my "I'm not dead yet sign" written in several languages just in case. [:D]
Only kidding!
But seriously though, you really do not need to worry. Relax, enjoy your meditations and other yoga practices, and don't worry about people breaking your door down. [:)]
Christi
-
Hey guys, Keep in mind that intensely fixated states of concentration are not enlightenment in the slightest. Focus is samsara. No focus is nirvana.
TI, That Ajahn Brahm book you are referring to states that insight comes after that state, during post-meditation. That level of concentration is a distraction. Ajahn Brahm's praise of that meditator is unwise.
Rest the mind with no point of reference. Be free.
Adamant
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Kirtanman,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
What can I say? Only that the description of nirvikalpa samadhi that I quoted from the Wikipedia entry fits exactly with my own experience of nirvikalpa samadhi. The description of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi given fits exactly with my own experience of sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. I don't see any need to question it based on experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including the breath stopping // heartbeat stopping?
Those two items are my concerns, as I can see them misleading people ... a concern I know you share generally, even if we don't always agree on specific items.
These items are not requirements for nirvikalpa samadhi.
They're also not within my experience, the experience of anyone I've ever known.
quote:
What I am saying is, that within Yoga, the terms nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja samadhi (or sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi) usually have certain meanings. These meanings are reflected in the wikipedia article that I mentioned. It seems to me that what you are describing as your own experiencing is what is normally refered to as sahaja samadhi (and occasionally as sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi).
Per your comment above ... and your comment below ... my understanding is that savikalpa/samprajnata samadhi precedes nirvikalpa/asamprajnata, which in turn, precedes sahaja nirvikalpa.
This is only logical.
Yoga is the journey out of mistaken identification with form, to knowing self as formless ... to knowing fullness of self as the integration of formlessness and form.
So, after a lifetime of identifiying with "form only" ... the yogi or yogini experiences the amazing absorption (samadhi), of having the distinctions between sense of self, the object being meditated upon (which can include mantra, or breath ... any object) ... and the perception of that object falling away ... unity consciousness .... savikalpa (aka samprajnata) samadhi.
Then, as practice continues ... not only the distinctions between the perceptions ... but the perceptions themselves fall away .... and only pure formless awareness remains .... nirvikalpa samadhi (aka asamprajnata samadhi) ... and the yogi/yogini knows in experience that awareness is not tied to form ... and that all perception, experienced over the course of a lifetime ... including sense of self ..... was a perception .... and not the self ... as discovered/re-discovered/uncovered via the experience of nirvikalpa samadhi ... conscious awareness without objects, perception or subject.
Now, it's one thing to experience this in meditation .... quite another to experience it at the grocery store, gas station or posting online.
[:)]
However, the light of samadhi in meditation, and inquiry and sustained meditation outside of meditation .... amazingly, facilitate this ... and one begins "livin' la vida samadhi" .... sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi.
Eventually, even the distinctions between awareness and objects, or samadhi states, or whatever .... dissolves entirely .... and there's just wholeness and harmony .... with no abstract, artificial conceptual divisions (i.e. "me" "the world" "samadhi" "awareness" "self" "enlightenment", subjects, objectives, etc. etc. etc.)
quote:
Nirvikalpa samadhi is usually a term used only for a very high state of samadhi where there is no longer awareness of the physical body, or any awareness of the astral or causal realms.
Yes, exactly ... that's how I'm using it ... and it's clear you understand the meaning ... and the ramifications ... no perception of physical form, no perception of mental form, no subjective self .... awareness alone.
quote:
It seems to me that although we can say that we are experiencing something, or have experienced something, and can then speak about it from experience, we can't say that as we have never experienced something it doesn't exist.
I agree.
quote:
So to say: "I'm not experiencing that and neither is anyone I know, therefore it's not true" simply doesn't follow.
I agree.
I'm not saying that.
I'm viewing the matter as follows:
There's a lot of exotic stuff written about samadhi states; some of it credible, some of it incredible (though, as we both understand, credibility itself is vastly overrated; much of the reality of many AYPers and other advanced practitioners is way beyond what most people would believe.)
Per my interest in, and benefits from, Kashmir Shaivism ... I'm comfortable with the very solid definitions of nirvikalpa given in that path.
For me, when all evidence showcases a certain actuality (nirvikalpa samadhi being the experience of original awareness, prior to/beyond all form) ... and there's no evidence or report of experience of an additional hypothesis (nirvikalpa samadhi involving heartbeat stopping or breath cessation) ... I'm more comfortable going with the actuality that's been verified, as opposed to the hypothetical statements that I've never experienced, nor heard of being verified.
Yogic wisdom has always been like that .... that's how it became yogic wisdom (and I'm not claiming to have it ... I'm saying that it seems useful to follow).
And to me, belief itself tends to be a tool of limited mind, best let go ... and so, experience (not as judged by mind ... more as ... absorbed by overall system) ... seems to be the stronger arbiter of what's actual.
Just as you're essentially asking me why I don't tend to accept what hasn't been verified, or isn't verifiable .... I'll ask you: why *do* you accept such things?
quote:
In nirvikalpa samadhi, there is no awareness of the physical body, so the breath rate and heart rate would be something that would have to be verified by someone else.
True; my experience as well.
quote:
There is also no awareness of time (as the appearance of time is something which only exists in the lower realms of manifestation).
Yes; true also.
quote:
I am not quite sure why the references to the suspension of the breath and heart beat should mislead anyone. It's kind of irelevant, after all, what does it matter?
Well, for one, I gave a definition of nirvikalpa samadhi ... and you responded with "Well, the Wikipedia definition is my exact experience" ... and, as far as I know .... the only difference between my definition and the Wikipedia definition, is the cessation of breath and heartbeat.
And, more importantly:
It could be used as a tool of mind, after the fact, to cause someone to feel that samadhi is less attainable than it is.
And yes, I know ... breath and heartbeat would have to be verified by someone else.
However, coming from my pragmatic view, I would say:
Since these things aren't directly applicable to nirvikalpa samadhi at all (as you and I both say: nirvikalpa samadhi is about awareness alone; it doesn't matter what the physical body is doing; that has no bearing on the matter whatsoever).
And so, I would say:
A simple definition, that people realize is "do-able" ... would help avoid the dynamic of someone reading something "exotic" about samadhi, and then letting their imagination delude them into thinking that they're a LONG way from such a "high-level" attainment .... which would be A. False and B. counterproductive.
As Yogani states repeatedly:
AYP's mission is to help as much of yoga be as accessible to as many people as possible.
A simpler, still-accurate description of nirvikalpa samadhi is more beneficial to this mission than a more aggrandized description, I'd say.
quote:
It is only really of concern to those not in a state of nirvikalpa samadhi who are around someone who is in a state of nirvikalpa samadhi. Having the knowledge that this can happen would be useful so that they would know not to call an ambulance for example.
Not really; it's not *that* hard to come out of (more so in the earlier stages; "difficulty of rousing" in another myth, as far as I know ... and I'm not saying there's "none" ... just that there are a lot of wild stories, out there .... and what good does imagining they might be true, serve?)
If they prove to be true ... them I'm happy to accept them.
Actuality is our friend.
[:)]
quote:
Maybe I missed something ... but it sounded as though you were connecting the information in Lesson 199 directly with nirvikalpa samadhi, somehow ... and all I'm saying is that there is no direct connection.
Yogani doesn't mention the word samadhi in that lesson.
And so, again, my concern is that readers might make a connection which doesn't exist, between the information in Lesson 199, and nirvikalpa samadhi.
quote:
It's quite possible to talk about samadhi (at any stage) without using the term samadhi. I often do.
Samvikalpa samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaja samadhi are just terms, but having an understanding of the way in which terms are commonly used can help to facilitate discussion.
Okay ... agreed in general.
My point was: Yogani was referring to crown opening .... not samadhi; the two aren't directly connected.
quote:
Personally I have never heard anyone use the term nirvikalpa samadhi the way you use it, but that doesn't mean that nobody else uses it that way.
I'm definitely missing something on this one ......... the only difference, as far as I know, between the way I'm defining nirvikalpa samadhi, and the way you are, as far as I know ... are the "heartbeat" and "breath" (stopping; both) items ... which is why I focused on them.
Other than that .... what differences do you perceive between the two definitions?
(And, to all: no, definitions don't matter; Christi and I both tend to "clarify via belaboring" ...... it's a conversational-style thing ........ [:D].)
I don't usually use the physical, astral, causal model .... but I agree that your overview of nirvikalpa samadhi is correct, using that model.
And (quick aside) ... I've never heard of samvikalpa ... I'm not sure if that's a typo ... or if that's a known term in another path.
It kind of makes sense, for that level of samadhi.
Savikalpa is "with thought-constructs".
Samvikalpa would be "unified thought constructs", or "good thought-constructs" .... which would both be fitting, as well.
I'm just curious if that's a term you know ... or a typo .. [8D].
quote:
I think Adyashanti uses the term "nirvikalpa samadhi" the way it is described in the wikipedia article I referenced, otherwise why would he say "nirvikalpa samadhi- big deal!" ?
I think it's more he doesn't use it much at all ..... hence "nirvikalpa samadhi, big deal!"
[:D]
And I agree ....... knowing true nature is a big deal; not any of the tools which help us get t/here.
However, in the yogic world, nirvikalpa samadhi is a big area of focus, and considered a milestone, etc. .... and so, having a somewhat clear overall understanding, as a group, is a good thing, I figure.
And, as is often the case with our dialogs ...... I figure: if anyone else has the patience to read them ... [:D] ... they can take what they each say, and reach their own conclusions.
quote:
If nivikalpa samadhi was a description of living in original awareness, then he would have said: "nirvikalpa samadhi- you got it!". [:)]
Adya has said the same kinds of things about kundalini ..... "Maybe it's kundalini .... maybe it's after-lunch gas!"
(Yes, that's a direct quote ... [8D].)
His point is: people make *way* too big a deal about terminology, and then imagine a lot of stuff related to that terminology ...... and it's neither the imagination (counter-productive), nor the terminology (possibly useful, potentially problematic) ... which is the important part.
Knowing true nature is the important part.
And, in the yogic world ... nirvikalpa samadhi can be a very powerful tool, especially if (in my view), any imagination about it is left aside.
And by the way, Christi:
If nirvikalpa samadhi *isn't* original awareness ..... what is it?
To all: And, as I've said before ..... it's usually experienced as a continuation of inner silence and witness .... it's not a state which can be induced at will, until one is systemically ready for it ("Ya never know" of course; I just mean in general).
True Nature isn't nearly as far away as most people think; full inner silence is it (the inner silence before you notice "Wow, I'm experiencing inner silence!" [:)]); the "gap" between perceptions is it .. any time there's awareness alone ... is it.
*Ultimately*, there's more of an integration ... as the Buddhist Heart Sutra says: form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. However, prior to significant awakening, emptiness is largely *ignored* ... and so, yogic paths teach identification with formless awareness (it's very helpful to experience non-limitation by form - including body, ideas, time, space, etc.) ... which is followed by the integration which comes from experiencing that there's no real difference between form and formlessness ... it's all one thing happening .... which is obvious once all the abstractions about it die down.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
However, it has never occured to me to do intense listening during mantra repetition and listen to the sound of the mantra as it's echo dissipates back into emptiness/presence/stillness. Thanks for confirming this.
:)
TI
No problem ... several Tantric schools, including Kashmir Shaivism, are about accessing this silence, via whatever means works ... the entire Vijnanabhairava Tantra is about this .... 112 techniques to take one into their true nature.
AYP, and its use of mantra, has a good balancing effect .... if you're truly in silence, you're there ... but as soon as you notice .... gently return to the mantra, as the lessons say.
This helps the mind either be silent, or focused on the mantra ... as opposed to wandering, which minds tend to do.
Since you're converse with the "other side" .... the dropping into silence ... by all means, go with it, I'd say.
Gaining familiarity/sustainability with silence/silent awareness is a BIG key (per the fact entire yogic tantras - "user guides" - are dedicated to it).
"The trouble is: you are looking for, and not listening; you are looking for, and not listening."
~A spiritual teacher I like a lot and you don't like at all.
[:D]
(His point is still good, here, though, I say: "looking" is an externalized way to go about things; "listening" is open and receptive; "he who has ears, let him hear.")
[:)]
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
And (quick aside) ... I've never heard of samvikalpa ... I'm not sure if that's a typo ... or if that's a known term in another path.
It kind of makes sense, for that level of samadhi.
Savikalpa is "with thought-constructs".
Samvikalpa would be "unified thought constructs", or "good thought-constructs" .... which would both be fitting, as well.
I'm just curious if that's a term you know ... or a typo .. .
Dyslexia rather than a typo, but it amounts to the same thing. [:)] Yes, the sanskrit is, as you say, savikalpa.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nirvikalpa samadhi is usually a term used only for a very high state of samadhi where there is no longer awareness of the physical body, or any awareness of the astral or causal realms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, exactly ... that's how I'm using it ... and it's clear you understand the meaning ... and the ramifications ... no perception of physical form, no perception of mental form, no subjective self .... awareness alone.
O.k. we seem to be getting somewhere here. If (for you) there is no perception of physical form in nirvikalpa samadhi, how do you know if the heart is beating or not and how do you know if the breath is suspended or not?
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Hey guys, Keep in mind that intensely fixated states of concentration are not enlightenment in the slightest. Focus is samsara. No focus is nirvana.
TI, That Ajahn Brahm book you are referring to states that insight comes after that state, during post-meditation. That level of concentration is a distraction. Ajahn Brahm's praise of that meditator is unwise.
Rest the mind with no point of reference. Be free.
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
You might find this video of GuruSwami-G interesting on the relationship between nirvikalpa samadhi and nirvana. She also talks about the difference between oneness and nirvana and the way in which nirvikalpa samadhi helps to facilitate the transition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TonS8gkit2c
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Hey guys, Keep in mind that intensely fixated states of concentration are not enlightenment in the slightest. Focus is samsara. No focus is nirvana.
TI, That Ajahn Brahm book you are referring to states that insight comes after that state, during post-meditation. That level of concentration is a distraction. Ajahn Brahm's praise of that meditator is unwise.
Rest the mind with no point of reference. Be free.
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
You might find this video of GuruSwami-G interesting on the relationship between nirvikalpa samadhi and nirvana. She also talks about the difference between oneness and nirvana and the way in which nirvikalpa samadhi helps to facilitate the transition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TonS8gkit2c
Christi
Christi,
This is the straying known as "reifying the essence." Giving the samadhi "experience" a nature of "absolute," "god," "brahma," etc., is the nature of this mistake. Ajahn Brahm also gives this literal "blown out" interpretation to nibbana. It doesn't hold up, even by his own definition, because nibbana is not attained in samadhi, but in post-meditation contemplation. Nibbana means no further birth. In the mahasiddha lineages, for example, Saraha, entered into nirvikalpa samadhi and emerged 12-years later, asking for his dinner. Disappointed, his female guru sent to work in contemplation until he realized Mahamudra. In Buddhist terms, while being a necessary ingredient, samadhi does not carry you to the other shore. Why? Because the real realization is not nirvikalpa sahaj samadhi, but realizing that the awareness of that state is not ultimate, not real, not existing, not anything at all. Only until that is realized, ignorance is not finally overcome, and then, "that state" cannot be maintained throughout the day and night, karma is not exhausted and rebirth is not avoided. I'm sorry, but this "guru" is wrong.
Adamant
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
This is the straying known as "reifying the essence." Giving the samadhi "experience" a nature of "absolute," "god," "brahma," etc., is the nature of this mistake.
Nirvikalpa samadhi is the direct experience of reality, as it is, so it simply cannot be reification. Sometimes when people hear the word "Brahman" they instantly think that reification must be involved (and it often is). When the word Brahman is being used to describe the absolute, and that is the nature of a direct experience of reality, then the word is being used simply as a description of reality. As I see it, Swamiji is using the term in that sense here.
Nirvikalpa samadhi is an experience, it has a beginning and an end, but reality, glimpsed in nirvikalpa samadhi is still reality.
quote:
Ajahn Brahm also gives this literal "blown out" interpretation to nibbana. It doesn't hold up, even by his own definition, because nibbana is not attained in samadhi, but in post-meditation contemplation.
As I saw it, Guruswamiji was not saying that nirvikalpa samadhi is enlightenment. In fact, she said that when we come out of nirvikalpa samadhi, the mind can come back in and take over again, in which case nothing has been learned. So she is saying that nirvikalpa samadhi is an experience, which we can learn from, not enlightenment itself. This is in contrast to some teachers who would say that nirvikalpa samadhi is enlightenment itself.
She does suggest that nirvikalpa samadhi in itself has the power to blow out the mind, and bring about nibbhana, if the conditions for awakening are right. The timely hearing of the truth also has the power to bring about nibbana.
quote:
Nibbana means no further birth
Well, nibbana means a number of things, but literally it does mean "blown out" or more literally, "without flame". It can also mean "no further birth".
quote:
Because the real realization is not nirvikalpa sahaj samadhi, but realizing that the awareness of that state is not ultimate, not real, not existing, not anything at all. Only until that is realized, ignorance is not finally overcome,
Negation can be a useful tool on the path, but if it is taken to an extreme it can also become an obstacle. When we start negating reality itself, then the tool has served its purpose and can be set aside. The highest realization is not an all-negating ontological nihilism, but an all-embracing (and accepting) divine love, which is the nature of Christ consciousness.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Because the real realization is not nirvikalpa sahaj samadhi, but realizing that the awareness of that state is not ultimate, not real, not existing, not anything at all. Only until that is realized, ignorance is not finally overcome,
Negation can be a useful tool on the path, but if it is taken to an extreme it can also become an obstacle. When we start negating reality itself, then the tool has served its purpose and can be set aside. The highest realization is not an all-negating ontological nihilism, but an all-embracing (and accepting) divine love, which is the nature of Christ consciousness.
Christi
Affirmation can be useful tool on the path, but if it is taken to an extreme it can also become an obstacle. When we start affirming reality itself, then the tool has served its purpose and can be set aside. The highest realization is not an all-affirming ontological absolutism, but an all-embracing (and negating) divine compassion, which is the buddha-nature.
Adamant
-
The dharmakaya is emptiness, not nothingness. The sambhogakaya is its radiant continuity, not void. The nirmanakaya is the unobstructed manifestation of all possibilities, not absolute reality. This has the nature of compassion and enjoyment.
This is our present condition, not something to attain. It is not nihilism, because we recognize emptiness. However, all-embracing absolutism is not dharma. Dharma practitioners do not adhere to any view, because any view is a limited position. Reality does not have such limitations of nihilism or eternalism. Yet the view is SEEING NOTHING. Though there is nothing to see, there is seeing. Thus, it is not void and not something.
Adamant
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Affirmation can be useful tool on the path, but if it is taken to an extreme it can also become an obstacle. When we start affirming reality itself, then the tool has served its purpose and can be set aside. The highest realization is not an all-affirming ontological absolutism, but an all-embracing (and negating) divine compassion, which is the buddha-nature.
Adamant
quote:
The dharmakaya is emptiness, not nothingness. The sambhogakaya is its radiant continuity, not void. The nirmanakaya is the unobstructed manifestation of all possibilities, not absolute reality. This has the nature of compassion and enjoyment.
This is our present condition, not something to attain. It is not nihilism, because we recognize emptiness. However, all-embracing absolutism is not dharma. Dharma practitioners do not adhere to any view, because any view is a limited position. Reality does not have such limitations of nihilism or eternalism. Yet the view is SEEING NOTHING. Though there is nothing to see, there is seeing. Thus, it is not void and not something.
Adamant
That's right. Any view taken to it's extreme is going to be of limited worth. Either, negation, or affirmation.
Personally, I find that with continued practice, it becomes clearer to see when negation is a useful tool on the path, and when acceptance (affirmation) is a useful tool. Used inappropriately neither would serve their purpose. Negation can come in many forms including negating the ego (personality) or negating the validity of experience, or negating reality itself. It can be useful if used at the right time and in the right way. Accepting what is, is the natural outcome of that path as the witness begins to expand into oneness (unity) and all things are seen to be our own true nature.
Truth, or reality is beyond the path, which leads to its realization. It has it's own nature and laws. On the path, we adopt certain tools, methods, practices, views etc. In reality, none of those things exist. There are no seekers and nothing to be sought. Words fail.
Even divine love is an inadequate description to use to describe the infinite majesty and glory of reality, as it is known to itself.
Christi
-
Dear Christi
I'd say that the practice, in many traditions, and in individual seekers' tendencies, is to take the positive way or the negative way to its end, to the extreme, rather than that this is of limited use as you suggest. Siva or sakti. Apophasis or cataphasis.
We are freed by losing the negater in the negating and the negated; or by losing the embracer in the embracing and embraced. Confusing for many to both embrace and negate at the same time, though for some this dialectic is helpful, or at a certain stage.
Either way, negative or positive, pursued to the end, to the extreme, we learn that these are not-two:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
There may be middle ways too, but it would be wrong to suggest that extremes are not valid keys to christ-consciousness, or buddha consciousness.
chinna
-
Christ-consciousness. I can accept that Christ may have had this. But what was the method? The documents, the oral transmission and the methods are all lost. "Christ-consciousness" is just a modern conjecture. This is just the way Christians are able to practice yoga while remaining Christian. But really Christ-consciousness is just a christian name given to a yogic state. However, at the apex of yogas are documents, an oral transmission lineage and working methods that are far beyond any "tradition" of Western or Eastern, shared by several galaxies. The fruition of these practices is beyond any description of "it is like this or that." But there is a concrete result of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence in the state of the Body of Light. This is something masters have achieved in the past decade. The equation of Christ and the Buddha sounds convenient; it's quaint and nice for group hugs; however, it doesn't hold up. The Buddha explicitly stated he is God's superior, that God is an impermanent illusion within samsara. If God is not dead, he will be; that's what the Buddha said. This is the opposite of what Christ said. In this sense, the Buddha is the Anti-Christ. [}:)]
In keeping with Wayne's spirit of leaving the dead guys alone, enlightenment is a personal experience of one's environment. It has nothing to do with God. You might want to say silence is God, but a silent God is not the Word. At the highest levels of yoga, God is not only irrelevant, but an impediment. It is a judgment, a limitation, confinement, suffering.
Adamant
-
Hi Kirtanman, Christi, Chinna, Adamant, Wayne, Carson, Katrine, Everyone ... :)
I dedicate this post to everyone who has not yet seen the LIGHT.
Today I am stopping all seeking of silence, non-dualism, emptiness, awareness and similar concepts. I will be devoting more time to the LIGHT. God is everywhere and the doorway is the LIGHT. Today, I am the happiest person alive!!! (not overjoyed, just very happy deep inside)
Today, I went back to meditating on the light. This morning's meditation was quite interesting! Prayers, bhastrika, Spinal Breathing and then "Seeking the source of the mantra, the light".
As I focused on the light, I started to see geometric shapes and patterns. The light was quite bright and these shapes were appearing directly before the light as if the light was emitting them; beautiful colors and patterns like metalic structures or 3D mandalas.
This intrigued me so later I did a search on the net and I found this page on the internet about the LIGHT. Here is a story about true nirvikalpa (death for sure). Here is a story that confirms my experiences of going to Heaven, seeing Jesus and Buddha, of healing and miracles. It explains the void and Oneness (unity consciousness). It explains a whole lot of things. Reading this page made me so full of tingles and happiness, you just can't believe! And it is written in simple sincere language that anyone can understand.
It is the story of Mellen-Thomas Benedict:
link: http://near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html
The page is quite long so I'm only going to quote a few parts but I recommend reading the whole story:
quote:
There was this light shining. I turned toward the light. The light was very similar to what many other people have described in their near-death experiences. It was so magnificent. It is tangible; you can feel it. It is alluring; you want to go to it like you would want to go to your ideal mother's or father's arms.
As I began to move toward the light, I knew intuitively that if I went to the light, I would be dead.
So as I was moving toward the light I said, "Please wait a minute, just hold on a second here. I want to think about this; I would like to talk to you before I go."
To my surprise, the entire experience halted at that point. You are indeed in control of your near-death experience. You are not on a roller coaster ride. So my request was honored and I had some conversations with the light. The light kept changing into different figures, like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, mandalas, archetypal images and signs.
Adamant, please read that very last line. I believe it reveals some of the answer to your questions..
Also, please read this next line:
quote:
I asked God, "What is the best religion on the planet? Which one is right?"
And Godhead said, with great love, "I don't care."
That was incredible grace. What that meant was that we are the caring beings here.
The Ultimate Godhead of all the stars tells us, "It does not matter what religion you are."
They come and they go, they change. Buddhism has not been here forever, Catholicism has not been here forever, and they are all about to become more enlightened. More light is coming into all systems now. There is going to be a reformation in spirituality that is going to be just as dramatic as the Protestant Reformation. There will be lots of people fighting about it, one religion against the next, believing that only they are right.
Everyone thinks they own God, the religions and philosophies, especially the religions, because they form big organizations around their philosophy. When Godhead said, "I don't care," I immediately understood that it is for us to care about. It is important, because we are the caring beings. It matters to us and that is where it is important. What you have is the energy equation in spirituality. Ultimate Godhead does not care if you are Protestant, Buddhist, or whatever. It is all a blooming facet of the whole. I wish that all religions would realize it and let each other be. It is not the end of each religion, but we are talking about the same God. Live and let live. Each has a different view. And it all adds up to the Big Picture; it is all important.
Was the river of life the cure for his cancer, for his spontaneous remission?
quote:
The light seemed to breathe me in even more deeply. It was as if the light was completely absorbing me. The love light is, to this day, indescribable. I entered into another realm, more profound than the last, and became aware of something more, much more. It was an enormous stream of light, vast and full, deep in the heart of life. I asked what this was.
The light responded, "This is the RIVER OF LIFE. Drink of this manna water to your heart's content."
So I did. I took one big drink and then another. To drink of life Itself! I was in ecstasy.
Perhaps this is the most intriguing statement on that page:
quote:
Since my return I have experienced the light spontaneously, and I have learned how to get to that space almost any time in my meditation. Each one of you can do this. You do not have to die to do this. It is within your equipment; you are wired for it already.
My method to find the LIGHT is by intending the mantra and seeking the source near the top of the head.
For my afternoon meditation I again meditated on the LIGHT.
The LIGHT was a whole lot brighter now, and understandably so. As I focused on the light, I started to see visions, but the visions had a kind of texture to them, and the visions were coming from the light, nowhere near the third eye.
I saw a vision of a young Egyptian boy, about 9 or 10 years old. He had had his head shaved and there were two Egyptian ladies painting the top of his head/skull with white powder. The boy had large brown eyes. I kind of knew, but I thought I'd ask anyway... Who is this? Is this me? "YES" was my reply. I asked, is this why I have an affinity to people with large brown eyes and why I've been seeking such a person? "YES". I had been searching for myself.
Some other visions appeared and I watched in awe. Then, I thought of the boy again, and instantaneously, I was watching him/me once again. The powder was being painted on his head in the outline of where the hairline should have been. I had the impression that I was very important. There was a lot of sand in the background. The two Egyptian ladies who were painting my head had long golden rods with leaves on the ends.
I returned to focusing on the light and more geometric patterns appeared, lovely blues and metalic greens. I went back to the boy again and looked into those eyes. It was me all along! I started to think and realize that I had gained the ability to consciously choose which scene to focus on.. then other realizations became apparent.. glad nobody saw me crying for joy on my way out of the building..
My hope is that one day I will learn how to transmit the light to others, or teach them how to see the LIGHT for themselves.
Smiling in the LIGHT!
:)
TI
If scenery can heal cancer, tell you about past lives, take you to heaven and let you speak to the Godhead, then that's the scenery for me!
-
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
Dear Christi
I'd say that the practice, in many traditions, and in individual seekers' tendencies, is to take the positive way or the negative way to its end, to the extreme, rather than that this is of limited use as you suggest. Siva or sakti. Apophasis or cataphasis.
We are freed by losing the negater in the negating and the negated; or by losing the embracer in the embracing and embraced. Confusing for many to both embrace and negate at the same time, though for some this dialectic is helpful, or at a certain stage.
Either way, negative or positive, pursued to the end, to the extreme, we learn that these are not-two:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
There may be middle ways too, but it would be wrong to suggest that extremes are not valid keys to christ-consciousness, or buddha consciousness.
chinna
Hi Chinna,
What I was saying is that negation can be useful to take us beyond identification with form (mind/body) into the eternal witness. But it is not a useful tool to take us beyond separation of the witness and the witnessed into oneness (unity). For that, acceptance (expansion of the witness to include all) rather than negation is needed. Beyond oneness (unity) neither the path of negation, nor the path of acceptance (embracing) are needed, and a new dynamic begins to take place. At the level of the Christ, nothing is denied (negated) and nothing is affirmed. Everything is known as it is, even whilst the power, light and love of the divine flows in stillness.
This is why I say that any view (negation or acceptance) taken to its extreme is of limited use. We have to be ready and willing at all times to let go of one path and take up what is needed as the sadhana progresses.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Christ-consciousness. I can accept that Christ may have had this. But what was the method? The documents, the oral transmission and the methods are all lost. "Christ-consciousness" is just a modern conjecture. This is just the way Christians are able to practice yoga while remaining Christian. But really Christ-consciousness is just a christian name given to a yogic state. However, at the apex of yogas are documents, an oral transmission lineage and working methods that are far beyond any "tradition" of Western or Eastern, shared by several galaxies. The fruition of these practices is beyond any description of "it is like this or that." But there is a concrete result of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence in the state of the Body of Light. This is something masters have achieved in the past decade. The equation of Christ and the Buddha sounds convenient; it's quaint and nice for group hugs; however, it doesn't hold up. The Buddha explicitly stated he is God's superior, that God is an impermanent illusion within samsara. If God is not dead, he will be; that's what the Buddha said. This is the opposite of what Christ said. In this sense, the Buddha is the Anti-Christ. [}:)]
In keeping with Wayne's spirit of leaving the dead guys alone, enlightenment is a personal experience of one's environment. It has nothing to do with God. You might want to say silence is God, but a silent God is not the Word. At the highest levels of yoga, God is not only irrelevant, but an impediment. It is a judgment, a limitation, confinement, suffering.
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
Christ consciousness is a modern translation of the Greek word "Christos" which in turn is a translation of the Hebrew "Messiah". Both terms were in use before the birth of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Messiah), so as an aspect of the human spiritual tradition Christ consciousness pre-dates Christianity. They both mean the same thing which is "one who is annointed".
In Yoga, the equivalent of the term "Christ consciousness" would be "jivan mukti" which means "one who has attained liberation whilst still living". Liberation in this very life (jivan mukti) is of course what the Buddha was teaching, so Christ consciousness (jivan mukti) is really the point of unification between all the great world religions.
Christi
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The equation of Christ and the Buddha sounds convenient; it's quaint and nice for group hugs; however, it doesn't hold up. The Buddha explicitly stated he is God's superior, that God is an impermanent illusion within samsara. If God is not dead, he will be; that's what the Buddha said. This is the opposite of what Christ said. In this sense, the Buddha is the Anti-Christ.
p.s. Personally, I find it useful to let go of ideas of superiority and inferiority. Obviously these ideas are based in duality (division) and lead neither to unity (oneness) or to liberation. The Buddha would have been as aware of this as anyone, as his primary focus was not in proving his own superiority over the divine, but in the liberation of all beings.
The God that the Buddha spoke about is very different than the God that Christ spoke about. The God that the Buddha spoke about was an idea in his mind, whereas the God that Christ spoke of was a living reality, beyond all ideas and concepts.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
But it is not a useful tool to take us beyond separation of the witness and the witnessed into oneness (unity). For that, acceptance (expansion of the witness to include all) rather than negation is needed. Beyond oneness (unity) neither the path of negation, nor the path of acceptance (embracing) are needed, and a new dynamic begins to take place.
Thanks Christi.
The first line above is only your own understanding/experience. Negation can take you beyond separation of witness and witnessed. The separation itself is negated, the witness is negated, and ultimately the oneness can be negated too. You are merely saying this has not been your path. There is no need for acceptance 'rather than negation'. They are seen to be not-two, whichever path you take, PROVIDED you pursue it to the ultimate extreme. Your post merely reiterates that you have not understood/experienced the potential of 'extreme'. I do mean totally, absolutely, experientially, extreme, not an idea of extreme.
Yes, beyond unity, there is no path, or need for one, provided it is totally, absolutely, experientially, extremely, really, not-two!
To see this issue about extreme is to see suddenly, rather than gradually.
chinna
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The equation of Christ and the Buddha sounds convenient; it's quaint and nice for group hugs; however, it doesn't hold up. The Buddha explicitly stated he is God's superior, that God is an impermanent illusion within samsara. If God is not dead, he will be; that's what the Buddha said. This is the opposite of what Christ said. In this sense, the Buddha is the Anti-Christ.
p.s. Personally, I find it useful to let go of ideas of superiority and inferiority. Obviously these ideas are based in duality (division) and lead neither to unity (oneness) or to liberation. The Buddha would have been as aware of this as anyone, as his primary focus was not in proving his own superiority over the divine, but in the liberation of all beings.
The God that the Buddha spoke about is very different than the God that Christ spoke about. The God that the Buddha spoke about was an idea in his mind, whereas the God that Christ spoke of was a living reality, beyond all ideas and concepts.
Christi
All nice opinions, but you can't fit the Buddha's teaching into a theistic model, at least, not using the Buddha's teaching. Hindu yoga and Christianity fit nicely together, per Parahansa Yogananda. God is love and all that. The God the Buddha was speaking about was the God of the Vedas, which is the same God the hindu yogis talk about. And when you are talking about what Christ talked about, you are speaking about the New Testament. Those documents were written sometimes several hundred years after the death of Christ. Hard to know what Jesus really said. We only have a few bits of his sermons, like a bare bones. I see what you are trying to do and its nice for world politics for everything to be connected and fit together. The problem is reality. It doesn't fit together. It's disconnected. These views and opinions don't add up. And this chaotic melieu is the door to enlightenment, to giving up views, to letting be and just seeing things for what they are.
Adamant
-
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Thanks Christi.
The first line above is only your own understanding/experience. Negation can take you beyond separation of witness and witnessed. The separation itself is negated, the witness is negated, and ultimately the oneness can be negated too. You are merely saying this has not been your path. There is no need for acceptance 'rather than negation'. They are seen to be not-two, whichever path you take, PROVIDED you pursue it to the ultimate extreme. Your post merely reiterates that you have not understood/experienced the potential of 'extreme'.
Negation of separation is affirmation of unity. You are just using a double negative to say the same thing that I am saying. We can use double negatives to fit a path of affirmation neatly into a path of negation if we wish, but why bother?
But semantics aside, the point that I was making to Adamant was that when we come upon that which is real, which is true, and we start saying, even this is not real, even this is not true, then we have taken the usefullness of negation to an extreme which is no longer useful. That's the time that the tool can be layed aside.
Christi
-
TI: You will find my book, The Implications of the Soul quite useful I'm sure. It's a free download. I don't even ask for an email address.
I was going through what you are currently going through about two years ago. Ken Wilber calls it the "Subtle Level" -- the level of the soul, or the Divine within. It is a very useful phase for dropping the personal self completely as it weakens the grip of the ego (if you focus on future lives--not past lives). See the book, you'll understand. http://waynewirs.com/impofsoul/ - Free, no personal info collected.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Thanks Christi.
The first line above is only your own understanding/experience. Negation can take you beyond separation of witness and witnessed. The separation itself is negated, the witness is negated, and ultimately the oneness can be negated too. You are merely saying this has not been your path. There is no need for acceptance 'rather than negation'. They are seen to be not-two, whichever path you take, PROVIDED you pursue it to the ultimate extreme. Your post merely reiterates that you have not understood/experienced the potential of 'extreme'.
Negation of separation is affirmation of unity. You are just using a double negative to say the same thing that I am saying. We can use double negatives to fit a path of affirmation neatly into a path of negation if we wish, but why bother?
But semantics aside, the point that I was making to Adamant was that when we come upon that which is real, which is true, and we start saying, even this is not real, even this is not true, then we have taken the usefullness of negation to an extreme which is no longer useful. That's the time that the tool can be layed aside.
Christi
Then you have to lay aside affirmation. Neither affirm nor deny existence or non-existence. Only then are you touching upon the Buddha's message.
Adamant
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The God the Buddha was speaking about was the God of the Vedas, which is the same God the hindu yogis talk about.
Yes, the Buddha was talking about the God of the vedas, or rather, his idea about the God of the vedas which existed in his mind.
quote:
And when you are talking about what Christ talked about, you are speaking about the New Testament. Those documents were written sometimes several hundred years after the death of Christ. Hard to know what Jesus really said. We only have a few bits of his sermons, like a bare bones.
There were many documents written about Jesus and his teachings, a few of which were recorded in the New Testament. That doesn't mean that all we can know about the teachings of Jesus is what is recorded in scriptures. In silence, many things can be known.
quote:
I see what you are trying to do and its nice for world politics for everything to be connected and fit together. The problem is reality. It doesn't fit together. It's disconnected. These views and opinions don't add up.
One of the amazing things about reality (and it completely blew me away) is that everything fits together, and everything is connected. Personally I find that the closer I come to that which is true, the more the teachings of spiritual teachers make sense and are seen to be pointing towards the same truth. Many fingers, one moon. Ultimately, as Kirtanman pointed out earlier in this thread, foccusing on the finger (or the many fingers), is not going to help us see the moon.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
The God the Buddha was speaking about was the God of the Vedas, which is the same God the hindu yogis talk about.
Yes, the Buddha was talking about the God of the vedas, or rather, his idea about the God of the vedas which existed in his mind.
quote:
And when you are talking about what Christ talked about, you are speaking about the New Testament. Those documents were written sometimes several hundred years after the death of Christ. Hard to know what Jesus really said. We only have a few bits of his sermons, like a bare bones.
There were many documents written about Jesus and his teachings, a few of which were recorded in the New Testament. That doesn't mean that all we can know about the teachings of Jesus is what is recorded in scriptures. In silence, many things can be known.
quote:
I see what you are trying to do and its nice for world politics for everything to be connected and fit together. The problem is reality. It doesn't fit together. It's disconnected. These views and opinions don't add up.
One of the amazing things about reality (and it completely blew me away) is that everything fits together, and everything is connected. Personally I find that the closer I come to that which is true, the more the teachings of spiritual teachers make sense and are seen to be pointing towards the same truth. Many fingers, one moon. Ultimately, as Kirtanman pointed out earlier in this thread, foccusing on the finger (or the many fingers), is not going to help us see the moon.
Christi
It only appears to fit together. Everything is interdependent; but this is the samsaric view. Spontaneous manifestation is random, nondual, not connected. Though it will appear interdependent with conditions from the samsaric perspective, it is not. This is what liberation means. Liberation from what? All the interdependent connections. The ties, the connections, are bondage.
Adamant
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
It only appears to fit together. Everything is interdependent; but this is the samsaric view. Spontaneous manifestation is random, nondual, not connected. Though it will appear interdependent with conditions from the samsaric perspective, it is not. This is what liberation means. Liberation from what? All the interdependent connections. The ties, the connections, are bondage.
Liberation isn't liberation from something. That is still a dualistic view. Liberation is beyond all views.
quote:
Then you have to lay aside affirmation. Neither affirm nor deny existence or non-existence. Only then are you touching upon the Buddha's message.
Yes, but there is a natural order of progression. If we are using negation as a spiritual tool (and we don't have to of course), then after negation has served its useful life, there has to be affirmation (or negation of separation if we are using double negatives). And only after affirmation has served its useful life do we reach a place where we no longer negate or affirm. So it is about getting things in the right order. Fitting things together in a way that works, rather than a way which doesn't work.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
It only appears to fit together. Everything is interdependent; but this is the samsaric view. Spontaneous manifestation is random, nondual, not connected. Though it will appear interdependent with conditions from the samsaric perspective, it is not. This is what liberation means. Liberation from what? All the interdependent connections. The ties, the connections, are bondage.
Liberation isn't liberation from something. That is still a dualistic view. Liberation is beyond all views.
quote:
Then you have to lay aside affirmation. Neither affirm nor deny existence or non-existence. Only then are you touching upon the Buddha's message.
Yes, but there is a natural order of progression. If we are using negation as a spiritual tool (and we don't have to of course), then after negation has served its useful life, there has to be affirmation (or negation of separation if we are using double negatives). And only after affirmation has served its useful life do we reach a place where we no longer negate or affirm. So it is about getting things in the right order. Fitting things together in a way that works, rather than a way which doesn't work.
Christi
No Christi, It is liberation from circling, chasing mirages, tail chasing. In the sense that illusions don't exist, indeed, you don't throw water on an illusory fire. But you do if you are stupid and believe there is really a fire there. Liberation is beyond all views. This is true. Views are bondage, fire, one's tail. So this is also dualistic, views/no views. This talk about first there has to be negation and then affirmation is nonsense. There's nothing to affirm or negate from the outset. The path of seeking is due to confusion. I am not agreeing with our friend Chinna. Pursuing things to extremes is the Advaita view. I don't buy into any views or pursuing. The real path of no path is no effort, everything is spontaneously self-perfected with no intervention. Simply letting be in the open absence of any reality. And this leads to the perfect position dissolving into the Clear Light, aimlessly, without concern.
Adamant
-
Hi Adamant,
I have been enjoying and learning from your many posts. Thank you for taking the time to share.
Your most recent discussion with Christi regarding the Buddha and the Christ spawns one question. Within your lineage and dzogchen practices does Heart and Love have a place? Could you please clarify, regarding. Thanks much.
Steve [:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Hi Adamant,
I have been enjoying and learning from your many posts. Thank you for taking the time to share.
Your most recent discussion with Christi regarding the Buddha and the Christ spawns one question. Within your lineage and dzogchen practices does Heart and Love have a place? Could you please clarify, regarding. Thanks much.
Steve [:)]
Of course, it is the heart of the teaching. What is the essence of love? Unidentifiable, yet present. It is known in one's continuum, in one's heart. This presence is shown through the examples of the crystal ball, mirror and prism. Such is one's own nature, energy and manifestation. One is introduced directly the unidentifiable yet present nature of compassion which resides in the heart chakra. All appearances and possibilities abide nondual in the heart as emptiness, sound and light. All the manifestations of one's body and world radiate from here. This puts the individual in the center of the universe radiating reality as one's perfection of love. The whole cosmos is one's own heart.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
Negation of separation is affirmation of unity. You are just using a double negative to say the same thing that I am saying. We can use double negatives to fit a path of affirmation neatly into a path of negation if we wish, but why bother?
But semantics aside, the point that I was making to Adamant was that when we come upon that which is real, which is true, and we start saying, even this is not real, even this is not true, then we have taken the usefullness of negation to an extreme which is no longer useful. That's the time that the tool can be layed aside.
Christi
Dear Christi
Thanks that helps me understand where you are. I am not talking about semantics or an intellectual negation at all. That's only negating 101. I can see that, from there, what I say would seem like an intellectual game. I am talking about inner dynamic reality. Instead of negate, perhaps it is easier for you to hear what I am pointing to if I say 'go beyond'. It is more difficult to imagine semantics with this phrase. But it is not really accurate enough because it can be used with embracing too.
Negating and affirmation are different inner dispositions, movements, different directions of travel, which lead to the same unity/not-two. Either direction, 'inwards' (negating) or 'outwards' (embracing) needs to be followed until we are beyond all beyonds. It is extreme, passing beyond every subtlety. And extreme negating doesn't need to be constantly balanced by embracing.
It is the subtlest feeling rather than semantics I am pointing to.
regards
chinna
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
[
It only appears to fit together. Everything is interdependent; but this is the samsaric view. Spontaneous manifestation is random, nondual, not connected. Though it will appear interdependent with conditions from the samsaric perspective, it is not. This is what liberation means. Liberation from what? All the interdependent connections. The ties, the connections, are bondage.
Adamant
Yes, mind makes meaning, makes all appear interdependent, or otherwise.
It is a key step to realise the relatedness of all, before we go beyond even that.
One/unity still implies further numbers, relationships. Not-two is not a relationship.
'Ego-I is the illusion of relationship' as the late Da once said.
chinna
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
No Christi, It is liberation from circling, chasing mirages, tail chasing. In the sense that illusions don't exist, indeed, you don't throw water on an illusory fire. But you do if you are stupid and believe there is really a fire there. Liberation is beyond all views. This is true. Views are bondage, fire, one's tail. So this is also dualistic, views/no views.
I think we are saying the same thing here. The tail chasing, circling, chasing mirages is really just a dream, so what is there in reality to be liberated from? This is what I meant by liberation is not liberation from something, it is simply liberation.
quote:
This talk about first there has to be negation and then affirmation is nonsense. There's nothing to affirm or negate from the outset. The path of seeking is due to confusion.
This discussion about negation and affirmation began between us because you wrote this:
"Because the real realization is not nirvikalpa sahaj samadhi, but realizing that the awareness of that state is not ultimate, not real, not existing, not anything at all. Only until that is realized, ignorance is not finally overcome,"
Sounds very much like negation to me.
So if we are using negation as you do (and as I mentioned above not everyone does or needs to) then it becomes relevant as to when it is useful, and when not. Ultimately it may not have relevance, but at the stage where it is being used (and sometimes used heavily) then it is of relevance and it's counterbalance is also of relevance.
Christi
-
Just identify with the natural clarity and vividness of ordinary reality rather than the thoughtstream
This is the bottomline.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
"Because the real realization is not nirvikalpa sahaj samadhi, but realizing that the awareness of that state is not ultimate, not real, not existing, not anything at all. Only until that is realized, ignorance is not finally overcome,"
Sounds very much like negation to me.
So if we are using negation as you do (and as I mentioned above not everyone does or needs to) then it becomes relevant as to when it is useful, and when not. Ultimately it may not have relevance, but at the stage where it is being used (and sometimes used heavily) then it is of relevance and it's counterbalance is also of relevance.
Christi
This is just semantics and misses the sense. What is the fact? There is no ultimate reality at all. When this is, that is. When that ceases, this ceases. This has to be recognized; when it is, one can manifest liberated.
Adamant
-
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Dear Christi
Thanks that helps me understand where you are. I am not talking about semantics or an intellectual negation at all. That's only negating 101. I can see that, from there, what I say would seem like an intellectual game. I am talking about inner dynamic reality. Instead of negate, perhaps it is easier for you to hear what I am pointing to if I say 'go beyond'. It is more difficult to imagine semantics with this phrase. But it is not really accurate enough because it can be used with embracing too.
regards
Thanks for that clarification, that helps me understand where you are as well. I wasn't suggesting at all that your path of negation is an intellectual game. I know that it is very real for you and is as valid a path as any. What I was saying though, is that negating the separation of the witness and witnessed, is in practice, the embracing of both the witness the witnessed in oneness. If negation was the path used to shift from identification with the body/mind, then a new dynamic comes into play with the transition from the witness stage to the stage of oneness (unity). And yes, as you say, "going beyond" the witness/ witnessed division would be a better description of the process.
quote:
Negating and affirmation are different inner dispositions, movements, different directions of travel, which lead to the same unity/not-two. Either direction, 'inwards' (negating) or 'outwards' (embracing) needs to be followed until we are beyond all beyonds. It is extreme, passing beyond every subtlety. And extreme negating doesn't need to be constantly balanced by embracing.
Ah, I think this could be where you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that extreme negating (or any kind of negating) needs to be constantly balanced by embracing (affirmation). I was saying that if the path of negation is being used, then at some point, in the higher stages of the path, negation needs to be dropped. This is simply because divine reality doesn't negate anything, it simply is, known only to itself. So in order to merge with That, we must become like That.
We're talking about the end-game here, the end of seeking (or non-seeking), when the drop becomes the ocean.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Just identify with the natural clarity and vividness of ordinary reality rather than the thoughtstream
This is the bottomline.
You don't identify anything. You leave it alone, including the thoughtstream. Recognizing the invisible Clear Light swallows all.
Adamant
-
Christi, It's not negating, as in a logic game. It's a direct clear seeing of NOTHINGNESS, staring into VOIDNESS. Then,... next... One can clearly MANIFEST anything at all, and CONTINUE in natural self-perfection with no effort. But the moment one points to something 'real,' circling.
Adamant
P.S. not born, not arising, not beginning, not ceasing, not affirming, not negating, not anything, nothing whatsoever
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
This is just semantics and misses the sense. What is the fact? There is no ultimate reality at all. When this is, that is. When that ceases, this ceases. This has to be recognized; when it is, one can manifest liberated.
It appears like that, yes. But the truth is that beyond that, there is something which is more real than you could ever imagine, and more incredible than you could ever dream of. In divine reality, there is no "this" or "that" and nothing ceases.
Brighter than the light of ten thousand suns, and darker than the darkest night. It cannot be spoken of, but it can be known. And it is That which is known in nirvikalpa samadhi.
Christi
-
Hi Adamant,
p.s.
quote:
Christi, It's not negating, as in a logic game. It's a direct clear seeing of NOTHINGNESS, staring into VOIDNESS.
Just to clarify, when I was talking about negation above, I was talking about the process of negation as a spiritual practice, in the form of "not this", "not this". All that I wrote was in reference to that only, not in reference to voidness or nothingness or anything else.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
This is just semantics and misses the sense. What is the fact? There is no ultimate reality at all. When this is, that is. When that ceases, this ceases. This has to be recognized; when it is, one can manifest liberated.
It appears like that, yes. But the truth is that beyond that, there is something which is more real than you could ever imagine, and more incredible than you could ever dream of. In divine reality, there is no "this" or "that" and nothing ceases.
Brighter than the light of ten thousand suns, and darker than the darkest night. It cannot be spoken of, but it can be known. And it is That which is known in nirvikalpa samadhi.
Christi
I said not ceasing, because nothing begins. There is no truth beyond that. If you think there is, you're dreaming a big, unimaginable dream, called whatever you want. Whatever you want to call it, it's a rest stop at the vista point on the freeway to nowhere. Once you stop driving, the possibilities are infinite.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Just identify with the natural clarity and vividness of ordinary reality rather than the thoughtstream
This is the bottomline.
You don't identify anything. You leave it alone, including the thoughtstream. Recognizing the invisible Clear Light swallows all.
Adamant
There is no Clear Light to swallow all. See, I can also play the semantics game.
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nirvikalpa samadhi is usually a term used only for a very high state of samadhi where there is no longer awareness of the physical body, or any awareness of the astral or causal realms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, exactly ... that's how I'm using it ... and it's clear you understand the meaning ... and the ramifications ... no perception of physical form, no perception of mental form, no subjective self .... awareness alone.
O.k. we seem to be getting somewhere here. If (for you) there is no perception of physical form in nirvikalpa samadhi, how do you know if the heart is beating or not and how do you know if the breath is suspended or not?
Christi
That's a good question/good point.
For me, Nirvikalpa Samadhi followed a trajectory similar to other practices and openings (aka results-of-practices) ...
... somewhat "clunky" in the beginning (aka "Whoa, what happened??", in this case), then "intense" ("WOW!") .... which was when I experienced utter lack of anything, other than awareness alone.
This went on for a period of a few months or so.
Then, there was kind of an "integration phase", where:
A. It "normalized" ... it became part of every meditation, and the "woo-hoo" factor wasn't there; it was just "how it was" during meditation.
B. Thoughtless awareness//awareness free from attachment to thoughts .... started rapidly increasing during day-to-day life.
C. "Waking sleep" (aka nirvikalpa samadhi) started to happen a lot, when I was formerly "unconsciously asleep".
D. (PERTINENT PART, ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION WISE [:)]) ... there was no longer *total* cessation of bodily awareness ... because there didn't need to be .... ultimately, nirvikalpa samadhi is about the reorientation regarding sense of self (away from focus/attachment to form) ... and so, bodily perception could "dial-down" probably 98-99% ... but it wasn't a hundred percent; these days, it's probably less ...... candidly, I don't really notice .... "what happens, happens".
And so, I hit this phase a while back:
Now, there there's no non-samadhi; harmony/unity/flow is just how-it-is ... and the amount of form perception or formlessness in perception now doesn't really matter; it all flows at is flows, as ever.
And so, the most candid/hopefully helpful/straightforward answer I can give, is:
I can't actually say, in conjunction with the no-bodily-awareness phase of nirvikalpa samadhi, whether my heartbeat or breath might have stopped, during that phase (during meditation, over a period of a few months, during meditation, probably the beginning of 2008 or so).
However, per the fact that at any time there's been sufficient bodily awareness to tell, my heart has been beating, and I've generally been breathing, except for fairly brief instances of the breathless state (which always happen spontaneously) .... combined with intuition .... I'd say my heart likely didn't stop, nor did my breathing.
However, you're right: during complete cessation of bodily awareness .... I couldn't actually know this.
And, as I believe I said:
It actually doesn't actually matter; nirvikalpa samadhi is an awareness dynamic, not a physical one.
The entire point of the experience (of nirvikalpa samadhi) is as the beginning of the full re-orientation away from identification with form.
It's the reorientation away from identification with form (whether physical, subtle, causal/very subtle, or of any other type) that's the important aspect of nirvikalpa samadhi, or sadhana overall, at a certain stage.
And, also as mentioned before:
There are many who have realized enlightenment .... who have never experienced nirvikalpa samadhi, or any other kind of samadhi.
There are a nearly infinite number of ways to realize true nature, and to enter into living from it ... and everyone's experience is unique.
Nirvikalpa Samadhi can simply be a helpful tool, just as the witness, inquiry and other practices can be .... it's sort of a "jump start" of non-identification with form .... which allows for identification with form to be transcended ... so that it can finally be included/accepted, in/as wholeness.
Because the truly important part is:
Knowing/Being the wholeness we each and all are, now.
And, fortunately ..... infinitely-fortunately [:)] .... there are a nearly infinite number of ways to know ourselves as wholeness ....... and there aren't any ways, ultimately, to not know ourselves as wholeness, forever.
Wholeness is this that we each and all ever are, now.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Just identify with the natural clarity and vividness of ordinary reality rather than the thoughtstream
This is the bottomline.
You don't identify anything. You leave it alone, including the thoughtstream. Recognizing the invisible Clear Light swallows all.
Adamant
There is no Clear Light to swallow all. See, I can also play the semantics game.
You're not playing a semantic game; you're just saying something false.
Adamant
-
whatever I think its best to just do what the infallible Jigme Lingpa and the Dalai Lama say:
Distinguish rigpa from sems.
Although you do technically need a lama for this.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
TI: You will find my book, The Implications of the Soul quite useful I'm sure. It's a free download. I don't even ask for an email address.
I was going through what you are currently going through about two years ago. Ken Wilber calls it the "Subtle Level" -- the level of the soul, or the Divine within. It is a very useful phase for dropping the personal self completely as it weakens the grip of the ego (if you focus on future lives--not past lives). See the book, you'll understand. http://waynewirs.com/impofsoul/ - Free, no personal info collected.
Hi Wayne,
Thanks for that. Hmmm.. I've done three past life regressions using crystals a few years ago, and then that episode I wrote about yesterday, that was the fourth life I've recognized. The last time I actively pursued past/future lives (a few weeks ago) I saw an endless chain of so many other lives that I got kind of disinterested in the past life thing.. Now I figure if there is some important past life that I'm supposed to know about, the LIGHT will show it to me, as it has done..
Yes, according the monks, the LIGHT is the soul body coming through. And repeated samadhis into the LIGHT will eventually make the LIGHT brighter and help you realize your soul. The process will eventually register into your mind that you are not the body or the mind, but the light. This is probably quite a blow to the ego, so I would think that it helps to dissolve the ego as well.
But, according the monks you are supposed to find the center of the light and then punch your way through to that center. It is supposed to take you to a clear light blue akasha space where the occult/siddhis may be performed. However, the monks say that you if you partake in siddhis at that point, it drags you back down into the lower states of consciousness and you have to start over. Instead, the monks suggest that when you are in the light blue akashic space beyond the light, that you must look for and find the top branch of the sushumna.
So, I'm meditating on the light. During today's meditation I almost found the center of the light. What happens is that I see so many scenes/faces/shapes that I really have to try hard to get to the just the pure light. The scenes/faces/shapes are a serious distraction and they are so powerful now. They suck you into them so quickly that it is a constant battle to try to get past them.. It is like trying to swim upriver against a raging current, or worse playing a game of ping pong with your awareness. I'll get better at it now that I know what to do. It's going to take a lot of effort.
Here is a little bit about what the monks have to say about reincarnation:
quote:
Reincarnation and karma in its cause-and-effect form are practically one and the same thing, for they both have to do with the pranic forces and these bodies of the external mind. The sannyasin's quest is Self Realization. To make that realization a reality, he always has to be conscious consciously of working out these other areas. Why? Because the ignorance of these areas holds and confuses awareness, preventing him from being in inner states long enough to attain the ultimate goal of nirvikalpa samadhi.
Little by little, as he goes on in his esoteric understanding of these mechanics, he unwinds and reeducates his subconscious. He conquers the various planes by cognizing their function and understanding their relation one to another. This knowledge allows him to become consciously superconscious all the time. He has sufficient power to move the energies and awareness out of the physical, intellectual and astral bodies into sushumna. Then the kundalini force, that vapor-like life force, merges into its own essence.
I appreciate the sincerity in your videos. Nice to see you have been adding more..
:)
TI
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
whatever I think its best to just do what the infallible Jigme Lingpa and the Dalai Lama say:
Distinguish rigpa from sems.
Although you do technically need a lama for this.
The Dalai Lama is not a Dzogchen expert. Citing the Dalai Lama is like citing President Obama as an expert in economics. He might know experts, but he's not one. Remember, there are three statements of Garab Dorje. Introduction is just one.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Hi Adamant,
I have been enjoying and learning from your many posts. Thank you for taking the time to share.
Your most recent discussion with Christi regarding the Buddha and the Christ spawns one question. Within your lineage and dzogchen practices does Heart and Love have a place? Could you please clarify, regarding. Thanks much.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Adamant
Of course, it is the heart of the teaching. What is the essence of love? Unidentifiable, yet present. It is known in one's continuum, in one's heart. This presence is shown through the examples of the crystal ball, mirror and prism. Such is one's own nature, energy and manifestation. One is introduced directly the unidentifiable yet present nature of compassion which resides in the heart chakra. All appearances and possibilities abide nondual in the heart as emptiness, sound and light. All the manifestations of one's body and world radiate from here. This puts the individual in the center of the universe radiating reality as one's perfection of love. The whole cosmos is one's own heart.
Adamant
Hi Adamant,
Thank you for the reply and clarification. Much appreciated.
Steve
-
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
whatever I think its best to just do what the infallible Jigme Lingpa and the Dalai Lama say:
Distinguish rigpa from sems.
Although you do technically need a lama for this.
The Dalai Lama is not a Dzogchen expert. Citing the Dalai Lama is like citing President Obama as an expert in economics. He might know experts, but he's not one. Remember, there are three statements of Garab Dorje. Introduction is just one.
Adamant
I agree with this.
By the way, the Dalai Lama is a Dzogchen expert. He is the foremost Dzogchen expert, alongside Norbu and Sogyal Rinpoche I would say.
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
I said not ceasing, because nothing begins. There is no truth beyond that. If you think there is, you're dreaming a big, unimaginable dream, called whatever you want. Whatever you want to call it, it's a rest stop at the vista point on the freeway to nowhere. Once you stop driving, the possibilities are infinite.
Adamant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the Buddhist path, it can seem like that. It can seem like the end of the path is nothing and there is no reality. Actually, the teachings are simply a tool which are designed to help you to wake up. When you wake up, you wake up to that which is real from the dream of unreality. If we become too attached to the path, then the path itself can become a hindrace. This is what is meant by the finger pointing to the moon. The finger is not the moon. The tools, reflecting on the impermanence of all phenomenon, seeing the emptiness of all form, letting go of false attachment to ideas about the self as "not this", "not this", are the finger, the path. The moon is something else. It is what is awakened to, and of that, nothing can really be said, although in fact, as GuruswamiG pointed out in the video, all the rishis of all the ages have tried.
We cannot say that it is nothingness, because it is not. We cannot say that it is emptiness because it is not. We cannot say that it is unreal, because it is not. But we don't come upon truth by finding an adequate description of it in words, and then hanging on to that, saying: "this is it, now I know what is true". We come upon that which is true, by following a path of practice which leads to the awakening to truth. There are some who would say that there is no path, and that we are already awake, but ironically, in practice everyone who has ever woken up, has followed an effective spiritual path, before they arived at the point where they could say: "there is no path, we are already awake".
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
whatever I think its best to just do what the infallible Jigme Lingpa and the Dalai Lama say:
Distinguish rigpa from sems.
Although you do technically need a lama for this.
The Dalai Lama is not a Dzogchen expert. Citing the Dalai Lama is like citing President Obama as an expert in economics. He might know experts, but he's not one. Remember, there are three statements of Garab Dorje. Introduction is just one.
Adamant
I agree with this.
By the way, the Dalai Lama is a Dzogchen expert. He is the foremost Dzogchen expert, alongside Norbu and Sogyal Rinpoche I would say.
Re Dalai Lama. Really? That's not what Norbu says. In some circles Gyatrul Rinpoche is at the top of the Dzogchen ladder. But that's neither here nor there. Norbu gives lots of introductions.
Adamant
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
We cannot say that it is emptiness because it is not.
Christi
Everything you said is correct, except for the line I quoted. Attachment to emptiness as a concept is a huge problem. However, the innate disposition of the mind is given the term "emptiness," meaning without attachment, without confusion. Not nothingness, but not ultimate reality either: ineffible, open, not-two, present, unimpeded, clear, pure. In other words, emptiness is "voidness plus." It's voidness plus clear continuous presence. Not something becoming something else, but a continuous ever present constant state of being, where "being" means the abiding infinite potentiality. But it's voidness, because as soon as you peer into "infinite potentiality," there's nothing at all, because potentials are not real.
Adamant
-
Do any of you know what emptiness means?
Emptiness refers to the discrepancy between every thoughtform and how reality actually is. This is the technical definition.
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Everything you said is correct, except for the line I quoted. Attachment to emptiness as a concept is a huge problem. However, the innate disposition of the mind is given the term "emptiness," meaning without attachment, without confusion. Not nothingness, but not ultimate reality either: ineffible, open, not-two, present, unimpeded, clear, pure. In other words, emptiness is "voidness plus." It's voidness plus clear continuous presence. Not something becoming something else, but a continuous ever present constant state of being, where "being" means the abiding infinite potentiality. But it's voidness, because as soon as you peer into "infinite potentiality," there's nothing at all, because potentials are not real.
As I said above, trying to form statements in language which come as close approximations to reality, does not necessarily help us to come to know that reality. Such statements can inspire, or they can distract (if we get attached to them). In reality there is neither attachment, nor non-attachment, neither confusion nor non-confusion, so we cannot say that reality is emptiness. Being is in continual flow from the potential to the actual and back again into the potential. So reality is both infinite potentiality and infinite actuality and yet beyond both.
Voidness plus continual clear presence is the path, the finger, the gate. All the time, the moon is shining.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Everything you said is correct, except for the line I quoted. Attachment to emptiness as a concept is a huge problem. However, the innate disposition of the mind is given the term "emptiness," meaning without attachment, without confusion. Not nothingness, but not ultimate reality either: ineffible, open, not-two, present, unimpeded, clear, pure. In other words, emptiness is "voidness plus." It's voidness plus clear continuous presence. Not something becoming something else, but a continuous ever present constant state of being, where "being" means the abiding infinite potentiality. But it's voidness, because as soon as you peer into "infinite potentiality," there's nothing at all, because potentials are not real.
As I said above, trying to form statements in language which come as close approximations to reality, does not necessarily help us to come to know that reality. Such statements can inspire, or they can distract (if we get attached to them). In reality there is neither attachment, nor non-attachment, neither confusion nor non-confusion, so we cannot say that reality is emptiness. Being is in continual flow from the potential to the actual and back again into the potential. So reality is both infinite potentiality and infinite actuality and yet beyond both.
Voidness plus continual clear presence is the path, the finger, the gate. All the time, the moon is shining.
Christi
In reality there is neither attachment, nor non-attachment, neither confusion nor non-confusion, so we CAN say that reality is emptiness. Being IS NOT in continual flow from the potential to the actual and back again into the potential BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ARISE AND THEREFORE CANNOT CEASE. So reality IS NOT both infinite potentiality and infinite actuality and yet beyond both.
Voidness plus continual clear presence is the path, the finger, the gate AND AT THE TIME IT IS the moon shining.
The void clear presence is the shining moon. Any idea about some "real" beyond this is just a dream.
Adamant
-
Christi,
P.S. Nirvikalpa samadhi is the samadhi of cessation. This is the highest samadhi, but samadhi is not the ultimate state. There's no ultimate. The methods begin from this recognition. From here, one manifests benefits for all sentient beings, magically. The ability to manifest is due to this recognition. But the manifesting is only liberation if oneself is liberated from afflictions and obscurations and the manifesting is for the purpose of liberating others. Now I've said all I want to say.
Adamant
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
In reality there is neither attachment, nor non-attachment, neither confusion nor non-confusion, so we CAN say that reality is emptiness. Being IS NOT in continual flow from the potential to the actual and back again into the potential BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ARISE AND THEREFORE CANNOT CEASE. So reality IS NOT both infinite potentiality and infinite actuality and yet beyond both.
Voidness plus continual clear presence is the path, the finger, the gate AND AT THE TIME IT IS the moon shining.
The void clear presence is the shining moon. Any idea about some "real" beyond this is just a dream.
Adamant
Labels fall away in the brilliant radiance of the moon. Truth doesn't have anything to do with labels, and it never did. labels can serve a purpose on the path, but ultimately it is about awakening to That which is real, to that which is true. Things that we were so certain about before and which were held onto tightly, are seen to have been mirages, drawings in the sand. Everything is let go of, and then there is peace and freedom and the arising of compassion.
So a useful question to ask at this stage is: "Do I have peace in my own heart?". Only when there is peace, can we really start to talk about liberating others.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
quote:
In reality there is neither attachment, nor non-attachment, neither confusion nor non-confusion, so we CAN say that reality is emptiness. Being IS NOT in continual flow from the potential to the actual and back again into the potential BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ARISE AND THEREFORE CANNOT CEASE. So reality IS NOT both infinite potentiality and infinite actuality and yet beyond both.
Voidness plus continual clear presence is the path, the finger, the gate AND AT THE TIME IT IS the moon shining.
The void clear presence is the shining moon. Any idea about some "real" beyond this is just a dream.
Adamant
Labels fall away in the brilliant radiance of the moon. Truth doesn't have anything to do with labels, and it never did. labels can serve a purpose on the path, but ultimately it is about awakening to That which is real, to that which is true. Things that we were so certain about before and which were held onto tightly, are seen to have been mirages, drawings in the sand. Everything is let go of, and then there is peace and freedom and the arising of compassion.
So a useful question to ask at this stage is: "Do I have peace in my own heart?". Only when there is peace, can we really start to talk about liberating others.
Christi
Well said. Bravo.
Adament
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
I can't actually say, in conjunction with the no-bodily-awareness phase of nirvikalpa samadhi, whether my heartbeat or breath might have stopped, during that phase (during meditation, over a period of a few months, during meditation, probably the beginning of 2008 or so).
However, per the fact that at any time there's been sufficient bodily awareness to tell, my heart has been beating, and I've generally been breathing, except for fairly brief instances of the breathless state (which always happen spontaneously) .... combined with intuition .... I'd say my heart likely didn't stop, nor did my breathing.
Yes, this ties in with what is normally described as nirvikalpa samadhi in Yoga, a state in which awareness is completely withdrawn from the physical realm and all other realms below the absolute (void). Coming back down from nirvikalpa samadhi, after passing through the realms of infinite light, the universe is seen in the distance as a point of light. Past and future lives are seen reaching out through the ether, yet at the same time it is seen clearly that they have no relevance at all, because we were never really that. The dream is seen through.
These are the common characteristics that accompany descriptions of the experience of full nirvikalpa samadhi, and it is also my own experience.
quote:
And, also as mentioned before:
There are many who have realized enlightenment .... who have never experienced nirvikalpa samadhi, or any other kind of samadhi.
That may be true in the early stages of enlightenment. Personally, I would doubt that it is true in the higher stages.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Chinna,
I was saying that if the path of negation is being used, then at some point, in the higher stages of the path, negation needs to be dropped. This is simply because divine reality doesn't negate anything, it simply is, known only to itself. So in order to merge with That, we must become like That.
Dear Christi
We're nearly there, together! I would only amend the above by saying that negation doesn't 'need to be dropped'. That would imply still a dropper and a dropping, a motivated act, an egoic act, however subtle. I would say that, eventually, negation and negator 'are superceded by' divine reality, and then I join you in your second and third sentences above. But we are saying the same thing here, I am sure.
In other words, the jnani's job is just to keep negating. At some point, if s/he he pursues this to its subtlest level, s/he will be spontaneously overtaken by THAT. But s/he has no control over that, and neither the act of 'dropping negating', nor any other act, can achieve it. We are entirely 'in God's hands', and always were.
It is a dance leading to union. Like this series of exchanges!
Thanks Christi.
chinna
-
Hi Chinna,
quote:
Dear Christi
We're nearly there, together! I would only amend the above by saying that negation doesn't 'need to be dropped'. That would imply still a dropper and a dropping, a motivated act, an egoic act, however subtle. I would say that, eventually, negation and negator 'are superceded by' divine reality, and then I join you in your second and third sentences above. But we are saying the same thing here, I am sure.
In other words, the jnani's job is just to keep negating. At some point, if s/he he pursues this to its subtlest level, s/he will be spontaneously overtaken by THAT. But s/he has no control over that, and neither the act of 'dropping negating', nor any other act, can achieve it. We are entirely 'in God's hands', and always were.
It is a dance leading to union. Like this series of exchanges!
Thanks Christi.
We're always there, together... we always have been! [:)]
Christi
-
Hi Adamant,
quote:
But the manifesting is only liberation if oneself is liberated from afflictions and obscurations and the manifesting is for the purpose of liberating others. Now I've said all I want to say.
It's been a very fruitful discussion, thanks for contributing so much. [:)]
Christi
-
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And, also as mentioned before:
There are many who have realized enlightenment .... who have never experienced nirvikalpa samadhi, or any other kind of samadhi.
That may be true in the early stages of enlightenment. Personally, I would doubt that it is true in the higher stages.
Christi
When I use the term "enlightenment", I'm referring to the cessation of stages.
What I meant to convey is this:
There are many, many ways to come to know true nature ..... the experiencing of just being "all the way in" ....... the utter harmony of living unbound, unconcerned about self, enlightenment or anything else .... artificial self-reference falls away .... because artificial ideas of self fall away.
Not all of these ways t/here involve the dynamics that we would normally define as "samadhi" .... that's all I meant.
I concur with everything that's been said, recently ... some of it by you .... about dropping labels .... and I was just (hopefully) helping clarify that neither the term, nor the experience .... of nirvikalpa samadhi is any kind of "end all, be all".
One of the reasons for this is: a little samadhi can go a very long way .... even many microsamadhis can finally create a major shift in sense of self (or, rather, cessation of sense of self).
And, so ..... if someone is unfamiliar with yogic terminology, or has never had the types of experiences we're discussing here .... it doesn't mean they're far from enlightenment.
There's no one who's "far from enlightenment" ...... we *are* enlightenment .... some of us are just blocking the knowing of enlightenment with focus on conditioned thinking.
And, as discussed extensively, there's almost always a path or process from knowing to unknowing to liberation ..... my point was simply that the paths can look very different from one another, and not all of them involve samadhi-like experiences.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
[:)]
-
Hi Christi :)
I asked you this question before in a previous post but perhaps you missed it, or did not want to answer it. If you do not wish to answer that is fine. However, I am kind of curious...
What is your technique for getting into the various samadhis (nirvikalpa too)? Is is concentrative, that is, through generating a continuous stream of attention or is it finding the gap through letting go?
Thanks.
:)
TI
-
Hi TI,
Sorry I missed that post for some reason.
I would recommend an integrated yoga practice. In my experience both methods work (concentration and letting go into stillness). But seeing samadhi as part of an integrated process of transformation involving the body as much as the mind is of much more value than understanding any method of reaching samadhi.
There are really two factors which support samadhi, one is letting go into silence and the other is rising ecstasy on the neurobiological level. Samadhi can be attained purely on a mental level, but without rising ecstasy brought about by the purification of the subtle nervous system, it is of limited worth. As the purification process advances, kundalini reaches the crown chakra and there is a gradual dissolution into pure bliss consciousness. At this point samadhi becomes natural and spontaneous. Only when samadhi (stillness) merges with ecstasy everywhere in the body and beyond, does it give rise to the overflowing of divine love into the world. This can not happen without a full integration of spiritual practices. Samadhi (enstasy) which isn't balanced by ecstasy and love can give rise to a skewed enlightenment which becomes more about the person (individual attainment), and the path, than about the divine outpouring of love (service).
Christi
-
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
When I use the term "enlightenment", I'm referring to the cessation of stages.
What I meant to convey is this:
There are many, many ways to come to know true nature ..... the experiencing of just being "all the way in" ....... the utter harmony of living unbound, unconcerned about self, enlightenment or anything else .... artificial self-reference falls away .... because artificial ideas of self fall away.
Not all of these ways t/here involve the dynamics that we would normally define as "samadhi" .... that's all I meant.
Thanks for that clarification.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
We're always there, together... we always have been! [:)]
Christi
[:D]
chinna
-
Hi TI,
p.s.
Here is a description of entering nirvikalpa samadhi:
"By monitoring the breathing and watching the object of meditation become focused the breath or consciousness and “energy” will as you breath in towards maximum move up through the spine moving into the throat and into the cranium. It is this passage moving fully up the central channel or shushumna that allow Samadhi to take place.
By sitting in Samadhi and focusing on nothing or the object of meditation (one or the other) the mind will relax (mental distractions will slow and stop) and the higher or deeper need for full body relaxation will take you higher into cosmic consciousness (nirvikalpa Samadhi)."
From: http://www.avatarbabaji.com/blog/tag/nirvikalpa-samadhi/
And again here:
"The Door of Brahman
The matured state of the soul. It is the wisdom that comes as an aftermath of the kundalini breaking through the door of Brahman into the realization of Parasiva, Absolute Reality. The repeated samadhis of Parasiva ever deepen this flow of divine knowing which establishes the knower in an extraordinary point of reference, totally different from those who have not attained this enlightenment. "
http://www.experiencefestival.com/door_of_brahman
The Door of Brahman is the brahmarundra which is located slightly above the crown chakra. Parasiva is the absolute which is experienced in nirvikalpa samadhi.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi TI,
p.s.
Here is a description of entering nirvikalpa samadhi:
"By monitoring the breathing and watching the object of meditation become focused the breath or consciousness and “energy” will as you breath in towards maximum move up through the spine moving into the throat and into the cranium. It is this passage moving fully up the central channel or shushumna that allow Samadhi to take place.
By sitting in Samadhi and focusing on nothing or the object of meditation (one or the other) the mind will relax (mental distractions will slow and stop) and the higher or deeper need for full body relaxation will take you higher into cosmic consciousness (nirvikalpa Samadhi)."
From: http://www.avatarbabaji.com/blog/tag/nirvikalpa-samadhi/
And again here:
"The Door of Brahman
The matured state of the soul. It is the wisdom that comes as an aftermath of the kundalini breaking through the door of Brahman into the realization of Parasiva, Absolute Reality. The repeated samadhis of Parasiva ever deepen this flow of divine knowing which establishes the knower in an extraordinary point of reference, totally different from those who have not attained this enlightenment. "
http://www.experiencefestival.com/door_of_brahman
The Door of Brahman is the brahmarundra which is located slightly above the crown chakra. Parasiva is the absolute which is experienced in nirvikalpa samadhi.
Christi
Hi Christi,
Thanks for your responses.
I guess I was more interested in which method you personally use to enter nirvikalpa samadhi. For example, if you had to give step by step instructions to someone on how to enter nirvikalpa samadhi, what would you tell them?
:)
TI
-
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a name given to our natural state.
The easiest method to achieve it is to remain just natural.
The description given at avatarbabaji.com mentioned by Christi is not only a method but a process when one returns to its natural state.
But it will no longer remain a method for the one who has achieved Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Once achieved, then it just becomes a remembrance. Then one can just sit and go into Nirvikalpa Samadhi instantly. [:)]
-
Hi TI,
quote:
Hi Christi,
Thanks for your responses.
I guess I was more interested in which method you personally use to enter nirvikalpa samadhi. For example, if you had to give step by step instructions to someone on how to enter nirvikalpa samadhi, what would you tell them?
To start at the beginning of the AYP lessons, and work their way through, step by step, adding the practices as they are described and following the cautions given. Each lesson (and practice) has a specific purpose designed to bring people to enlightenment surely and safely. It is all there in the main lessons. There is some terminology which Yogani does not use in the main lessons, and the term "nirvikalpa samadhi" is one of those terms. But AYP is a fully integrated system of Yoga, so it includes everything, even if specific terms are not used.
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a name given to our natural state.
The easiest method to achieve it is to remain just natural.
The description given at avatarbabaji.com mentioned by Christi is not only a method but a process when one returns to its natural state.
But it will no longer remain a method for the one who has achieved Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Once achieved, then it just becomes a remembrance. Then one can just sit and go into Nirvikalpa Samadhi instantly. [:)]
Thanks Manigma for this reminder. Amidst all the complexities of technique and the glamour of the exotic, we remind ourselves that it is all about recognising the natural state. If we live well, it happens naturally as we age. There are countless enlightened people who have never heard the word. They just carry on ordinary lives, having become unusually open and at peace, lighting other's lives by their presence, not specially noticed. The feelings of spinal ascent, interior lights and all the rest are measures of our self-contraction as it releases, and the thought-free state only seems unusual amidst obsessive thinking, including about how to achieve it. The paradox of the spiritual paths is that they hold out the promise of being special, and end in the realisation of being ordinary. A zen master was once asked what he wanted most, and he replied 'to be an ordinary guy on the street'.
chinna
-
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
A zen master was once asked what he wanted most, and he replied 'to be an ordinary guy on the street'.
i don't know who the questioner was and why that zen master replied this. but normally an awakened one would never want to be someone else. he is fine with whatever he is... be it a king, a master, a businessman or an ordinary guy. you know that too [:)]
-
Hi Manigma,
Maybe the zen master was an ordinary guy on the street. [:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is a name given to our natural state.
The easiest method to achieve it is to remain just natural.
The description given at avatarbabaji.com mentioned by Christi is not only a method but a process when one returns to its natural state.
But it will no longer remain a method for the one who has achieved Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Once achieved, then it just becomes a remembrance. Then one can just sit and go into Nirvikalpa Samadhi instantly. [:)]
Yes. And as Chinna said, it is an ordinary state. Very natural, normal and ordinary.
Adamant
-
Ok....I just have to ask.....
Everytime I have experienced what would fit the common definition of "nirvikalpa samadhi" there is no ability to function as a normal human being...."I'm" simply not there. So if nirvikalpa is our "ordinary state", then how is one supposed to function as a human being in nirvikalpa samadhi or is that just not possible and a "functioning" nirvikalpa samadhi would be termed "sahaj samadhi"?
Love,
[^]
-
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
Ok....I just have to ask.....
Everytime I have experienced what would fit the common definition of "nirvikalpa samadhi" there is no ability to function as a normal human being...."I'm" simply not there. So if nirvikalpa is our "ordinary state", then how is one supposed to function as a human being in nirvikalpa samadhi or is that just not possible and a "functioning" nirvikalpa samadhi would be termed "sahaj samadhi"?
Love,
[^]
I mean I would just look into your nirvikalpa samadhi experience check what about that is not your own awareness (without the tensions)?
Adamant
-
Hi adamant [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I mean I would just look into your nirvikalpa samadhi experience check what about that is not your own awareness (without the tensions)?
I can only speak from my personal experiences of "nirvikalpa" based on the "definition" most common for it (meaning the wikipedia definition), but there was nothing in these experiences that was not awareness. It was pure awareness, with no knowledge of form....just pure awareness. But being in a state of pure awareness without any knowledge of form, "I" (meaning the awareness when bound to the body) did not exist, so I could not have got up and walked around doing things like washing the dishes or driving to work....if the body was up walking around, the awareness was not conscious of it (during these states of what I would call nirvikalpa). So my question is: "If nirvikalpa samadhi (as defined by wikipedia and some of you here) is "the natural, ordinary state", then how can one reside in nirvikalpa (the natural ordinary state) and still do things in "regular daily life?" In my experience that would not be possible because there would have to be an awareness of form, which to my understanding would be the definition of savikalpa samadhi (or perhaps sahaj samadhi).
Thanks for any clarification.
Love,
[^]
-
quote:
Originally posted by manigma
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
A zen master was once asked what he wanted most, and he replied 'to be an ordinary guy on the street'.
i don't know who the questioner was and why that zen master replied this. but normally an awakened one would never want to be someone else. he is fine with whatever he is... be it a king, a master, a businessman or an ordinary guy. you know that too [:)]
I am reminded of the advaitin Robert Adams, who was increasingly frequented by devotees towards the end of his life, and consented to teach as requested, but who really was happiest being left alone to walk on the beach with his dog. I took the zen master's comment to be in that vein. Sitting on a platform and wearing all that gear and behaving in the formal, mannered, way expected by students, so that they can pursue the path and get realised too, may well be irksome for one who has realised his ordinariness. St Paul expressed similar feelings about Jewish practice - he continued with it for the others who hadn't yet 'got it' and realised their freedom. Enlightenment doesn't mean being beyond ordinary feelings, including of duty and its potential irksomeness. It does mean being beyond the imagining of different destinies for oneself, I agree.
chinna
-
Hi Carson,
The issue may be confused because the term nirvikalpa samadhi is sometimes used to refer to the thoughtless state, as one literal translation of the Sanskrit is "samadhi without thought" [nir- without, vikalpa- thought]. Another literal translation of nirvikalpa samadhi is "samadhi beyond space and time" [nir-without, vi- to change, kalpa- a period of time]. A kalpa is 4.8 billion years, so in nirvikalpa samadhi, even the 4.8 billion year time cycles don't move. But from within nirvikalpa samadhi, the whole cosmos can be seen flowing into existence. It is the point from which the Isha Upanishad begins to make some sense:
quote:
It moves and It moves not. It is far and also It is near. It is within and also It is without all this. It is near to those who have the power to understand It, for It dwells in the heart of every one; but It seems far to those whose mind is covered by the clouds of sensuality and self– delusion. It is within, because It is the innermost Soul of all creatures; and It is without as the essence of the whole external universe, infilling it like the all–pervading ether.
from: http://www.yoga-age.com/upanishads/isha.html
So yes, according to the most common usage of the terms, in full nirvikalpa samadhi you would not be able to walk around or make a cup of tea. In fact, even if all the angels in heaven descended around you, you would not know that they were there. If you are in continuous samadhi, knowing yourself to be the ocean, and are making a cup of tea then that is what is normally called sahaja samadhi.
Here is a part of a question and answer session with Ramana Maharshi on the necessity of experiencing nirvikalpa samadhi in relation to knowing the Self:
quote:
Question : Is nirvikalpa samadhi absolutely necessary before the attainment of sahaja?
Ramana Maharshi : Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikalpa, is sahaja [the natural state]. What is body-consciousness? It is the insentient body plus consciousness. Both of these must lie in another consciousness which is absolute and unaffected and which remains as it always is, with or without the body-consciousness. What does it then matter whether the body-consciousness is lost or retained, provided one is holding on to that pure consciousness? Total absence of body-consciousness has the advantage of making the samadhi more intense, although it makes no difference to the knowledge of the supreme.
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Enlightenment/Ramana_Samadhi.htm
So the natural state comes when all vasanas (mental tendencies) have been eradicated through the process of purification. In that condition the natural sate (sahaja samadhi) is there, whether there is bodily (space/time) awareness (savikalpa samadhi) or not (nirvikalpa samadhi).
Christi
-
Awesome.....thanks for the clarification Christi....I think I understand now.
Love,
[^]
-
Quote:
Oh friend, seeking and searching, I was gradually lost. The ocean has fallen into the drop, now how can the drop be sought out?
The ocean has descended into the drop. Had it been the drop that had fallen into the ocean perhaps somehow I would have sought it out, but just the opposite has happened: it is the whole ocean that has fallen into the drop. Now even if I want to I would not know where to look for this drop. Now this drop cannot be found.
The mediums that have enabled us to know all that we have known in the world become useless in knowing what happens in the moment of samadhi. We ourselves become useless. Our very existence gets shattered. Some bigger existence, which has no limits, bursts forth on us -- suddenly. We die in the process.
Samadhi is the ultimate death, bigger than the physical death; because in the physical death only the body dies, the mind survives, whereas in samadhi the mind dies.
http://www.balbro.com/heart/beat11.htm
Adhyatma Upanishad
Master Daikaku said: Even if you don't become enlightened, when you sit once in meditation, you are a buddha for that sitting; when you sit for a day in meditation, you are a buddha for a day; when you sit in meditation all your life, you are a buddha all your life. [;)]
-
Thank you all very much for this thread! I only recently found it and the information has been very helpful, far more informative than anything I have ever read.
To me there seems to be two basic logic flows on enlightenment...
The larger group that is: just let go... and you find unity.
and
the Christi & Tibetian-Ice with: there is much more and higher levels.
This is very important to me, because I did not find myself here "searching for enlightenment". I was just living my life trying to be a decent husband, father and person. For me, it is more like being guided (or "pushed") on a path. Over the last few years, I have found a fundamental shift in myself & thinking, including massive energy bliss (even speech can have form and resonate).
I grew up Christian, but like Kirtanman, non-dual Kashmir Shavamism seems to fit as a framework for me. But, I seem to get more "spiritual aspects" out of the "spanda - vibration" works. In addition, I have found that I can manipulate the energy, but I find that I don't care about possible powers (which being a comic book fan as a kid is surprising[:)]).
With the outside force (Holy Spirit/Kundalini) guiding, I find myself more leaning towards Christi, but I wonder if it is all of us coming from a different reference/framework.
Is it possible that your perspective (and perceived goal) may be different, if you start with a K-awakening rather than a search for knowledge? How did you all get started on your search?
Thanks for any help and guidence.
Regards, Jeff
-
quote:
Originally posted by jeff
but I wonder if it is all of us coming from a different reference/framework.
Is it possible that your perspective (and perceived goal) may be different, if you start with a K-awakening rather than a search for knowledge? How did you all get started on your search?
Thanks Jeff. They are different ways of viewing the same reality, essentially the same path and the same end. Either emphasis will lead to the realisation of the truth of the other emphasis. Hence AYP includes jnana yoga, and most jnana yogis will confirm kundalini effects (but at the same time say they are of no significance and advise against getting diverted by them).
Different points of view in the path to no point of view.
My path was always advaita/jnana, the enquiry into who/what I am or any of this IS or is for. That enquiry coincided with the explosion of life-energy which is understood in the spiritual traditions as chi/kundalini/prana/holy spirit.
Life-energy unfoldment (kundalini) and non-dual unknowing (jnana) both 'cause' and are 'caused by' each other in equal measure, and are the same no-thing/realisation of emptiness.
chinna
-
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by jeff
Is it possible that your perspective (and perceived goal) may be different, if you start with a K-awakening rather than a search for knowledge? How did you all get started on your search?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You never ask a plant how it learned to grow such colourful flowers on it? And why?
Yet there are different flowers with different colours and fragrances. Do you think they had a goal?
Its all natural. We have no goal. [:)]
Please read the book 'Eight limbs of Yoga' by Yogani ji:
http://www.aypsite.com/plus/online-books.html#8lim
Its all interconnected. In one life you may lean towards practices that allow Kundalni awakening, yet in another life towards Yoga and yet again Self Enquiry or other. Or maybe all of them together in one life depending upon your soul's thirst.
My body was making an asana this morning. I don't know which one but it was bending my back, my neck and legs all at the same time. Earlier I used to get afraid but now I just let these happen. I have no goal anymore.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jeff
Is it possible that your perspective (and perceived goal) may be different, if you start with a K-awakening rather than a search for knowledge? How did you all get started on your search?
I think so. If a K-awakening is beyond the scope of your knowledge/belief system, then it may take you a long time to figure out what's happening to you (if you ever do).
For me, I was fairly "well-read" on eastern paths (Buddhism, Taoism, Zen) when my K woke up. So I wasn't shocked to have a mystical experience, but I didn't know what it was until years later. I started practicing and studying hatha yoga shortly after this event, then came across AYP. Then learned about kundalini and connected the dots.
Looking back, I now see that the awakening is what led me to yoga. I wasn't actively pursuing yoga, but discovered that my gym had yoga classes, and tried it on a whim. Then started looking into it more, one thing led to another, etc.
With Love
cosmic
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi That's what I thought. And thanks for the link. There is a beautiful description in the link of someone learning to use the light body for the first time:
“the truth is that sometime ago, after heavy meditation and fasting ..I have managed to disappear as light.And survived coming back....The problem is that the universe around me also proved to be the same light.So that's WHY I started laughing like a mad man while I was in the middle of the forest...or maybe the forest was laughing too?....All I know is I could see thru my hands...and all I could see was rainbow colors ..and the trees also were made of the same stuff as me....I was,and I am..everybody.
I am you,my beloved...my beloved me.
I know for sure was not some mind trick,because I passed my hand thru some tree..and my hand went right thru it..while all the molecules of rainbow body were laughing at me for trying it..that's when I started laughing too....that was the day when I laughed about the notion of death itself.
Even the tree was laughing at me..well.... because the tree was me too...hahahahaha..lol”
Hi Christi..thank you for calling my experience ,,beautiful,,..( on the http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=6652&whichpage=7#60506 post)actually it was beyond beautiful..it was scary and beautiful in the same time.
Hi guys..nice forum.
I posted on http://kriptodanny.blogspot.com/2009/09/pure-rainbow-body.html the quotes Christi refers too..They are mine,even though Christi said,,someone learning to use the light body,,.
That someone is me..anyway.
Happy to see so many serious practitioners discuss their experiences.
About that famous ,,rainbow body,, experience I've had..It took me completely by surprise.
Because seeing lights or becoming a light-beam(aka rainbow body) wasn't in my expectations..it just happened.
In retrospection,I don't think one could work for it,like..do this..and you'll go,,poof,, in a rainbow body(but maybe I'm mistaken,is just not part of my tradition)
Also,as I recall..I was at the end of a serious 8 months fasting(more or less) and meditation in the forests,while I was travelling by foot from Miami to Philadelphia...lost over 40 lb in the process.The more skinny I'd get,the more my meditations were becoming more amazing..kundalini waves were manifesting as a cool breeze in an empty shell of a skin bag,named ,,the body,,.
Total bliss indeed.
So I figured..why bother meditating,Danny..just go in the forest and abandon the body.
So as I was stepping deeper and deeper in the forest,with each step I'd abandon some deep layers of ego(while I was still in total bliss and joy).
Then I stopped still right in the middle of forest..and realized that I have abandoned even the idea of abandoning the body.
Then I asked aloud...then why I am here?
And set down in lotus,wondering about this question,looking around.,scratching my 8 months grown beard.
Then something happened...
As I abandoned even that question(why I am here?..on this earth I ment)..then poof..as I looked around..everything was light..I was a rainbow of light.I could see thru the trees too..and every one of them ,every leaf was me.
So I guess in the end it comes down to ,,letting go,, and something,the real nature will reveal itself.
When I saw that my real nature was light..and the same as the forest..I started to laugh so hard..of my previous stupidity to abandon the body.There is no one to abandon the body,see?
The meaning I got after that experience,as everything turned to normal..and the forest was there again,was that I was the light experiencing itself.
Never talked about that for years,till I read about the tibetan buddhists ,,rainbow of light,, and stuff.
Took me awhile to process the experience,really.
This stuff is real,indeed.
And about 3 weeks after that,as I was walking on the streets,I could see the people empty..just shadows of light,not aware of their essence.
Anyway,hope I haven't bothered you with my babbling ,I hope,hopefully..because you are the hope of the world(which doesn't exist,but it could if enough people realize their true nature)
with hope,danny:)
-
Hi Danny,
Thanks for joining us. [:)]
quote:
Hi guys..nice forum.
I posted on http://kriptodanny.blogspot.com/200...ow-body.html the quotes Christi refers too..They are mine,even though Christi said,,someone learning to use the light body,,.
That someone is me..anyway.
My apologies there... it wasn't clear from your website if you were writing from your own experience, or quoting someone else. Thanks for making it clear.
And thanks for expanding on your own experience of the body of light (a.k.a. rainbow body). This ties in with my own experiences of it. I know what you mean by scary and beautiful at the same time. Actually making the temporary shift into the light body was probably one of the scariest moments of my life. Somehow I stayed calm at the same time, because of the sheer beauty and awe involved.
quote:
In retrospection,I don't think one could work for it,like..do this..and you'll go,,poof,, in a rainbow body(but maybe I'm mistaken,is just not part of my tradition)
It happened to me after an intense period practicing the methods on this website for about 3 hours a day.
All the best,
Christi
-
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Danny,
And thanks for expanding on your own experience of the body of light (a.k.a. rainbow body). This ties in with my own experiences of it. I know what you mean by scary and beautiful at the same time. Actually making the temporary shift into the light body was probably one of the scariest moments of my life. Somehow I stayed calm at the same time, because of the sheer beauty and awe involved.
Hi Christi...it is a pleasure to talk with serious practitioners.
I am heaving a hard time reading all the posts on this site,so please bear with me...(even though I can speed read..but I'll explain other time how I do it)..But I recognized you have wisdom,then there is some other guy named adamantclearlight(whom is that guy?..besides you,he is one of the wisest,I'm telling you..) and some others like tibetanice and lots of others I forget right now...of course yogani rules..from the quotes I read of him,he is wise.(I'm still busy reading..)
This site is chocked with some real guys whom speak the walk,and walk the talk...
Plus on the positive side..you guys have a healthy moderators assistance..so personal jabs are not really encouraged.
This is a sign of wisdom..I sense some sanity here,at last.
So I composed a fresh poem for you,Christi..on my blog.
http://kriptodanny.blogspot.com/2010/03/it-was-scary-and-beautiful-in-same-time.html
Here is it..
Behold the marvelous dentist
Long live the clear rainbow light!!
Thus spokenth the mahayogi
While flexing his wisdom muscles..
Behold the clear light!!!
Now you see it,now it's gone
Because you have a tooth-ache
Named false assumptions..
So take off your glasses
Maybe you'll see better
And know there was no seer
Just the light seeing itself
In the rainbow glasses
Of the clear light body...
Now go to the kriptodanny dentist
He will cure your false assumptions
There is no tooth to ache..
There is no spoon either...
All there is..is the rainbow body
Of the tooth-ache ..
Marvelous dentist!
Now love me..kisses:)
-added by danny-
Just know that you are loved by a mahayogi...Christi:) live long and prosper my good man.
Kisses
danny
-
Hi Danny,
Beautiful poem... thanks for that. [:)]
I wrote one for you:
Beyond the things of the mind
No one stirs
But love moves, like a wind moving over the water
Or a hand passing through air
Peace beyond measure
Radiant
Joy-filled
Loving all as Self.
All the best to you too.
Christi
-
WayneWirs
USA
17 Posts
Posted - Jan 10 2017 : 12:54:33 PM Show Profile Visit WayneWirs's Homepage Get a Link to this Reply
It has been over 7 years since my awakening. Lots has changed.
As with any growth, evolution, or radical change, enlightenment takes a bit of getting used to. I have a saying, "Enlightenment doesn't play well with society."
I've provided a 60+ page excerpt from my opus on awakening (not just for AYP, but the world in general) called "Free Enlightenment" at http://waynewirs.com/free-enlightenment/ . No email address, no private info collected, no nothing. Free. If everyone woke up to their true nature, then the world wouldn't be filled with such anger and hostility and stress. Ergo my desire to "free enlightenment" into the world.
Forgive any silence on my part in response to comments, questions or criticism. I am a big believer in transparency in spirituality so my core personality (what I call the Inner Ego Aspect) is sometimes too direct for those who aren't familiar with me. I don't identify with this core personality, so I don't consider this a flaw?something to be fixed? any more than the mole on my face is a flaw, but still, this trait can be a bit too direct for many. My silence to comments therefore, is not meant as a sign of disrespect for the members of this forum, but as a sign of respect for the moderators of it.
Peace and Love and Kindness to all. - Wayne
Go to Top of Page
Blanche
USA
544 Posts
Posted - Jan 20 2017 : 06:28:49 AM Show Profile Visit Blanche's Homepage Get a Link to this Reply
Hi Wayne,
Thank you for sharing your experience and your writing. I am enjoying Free Enlightenment Has anything changed since you had this dramatic shift?
Peace
Go to Top of Page
WayneWirs
USA
17 Posts
Posted - Jan 20 2017 : 7:10:12 PM Show Profile Visit WayneWirs's Homepage Get a Link to this Reply
Hi Blanche,
Yes, much has changed? everything has changed. It's like I was living in this one world all my life, then stepped through a mysterious portal (the gateless gate) into a shimmering, parallel world?far more real than the old one, but still very similar. It took me over six years to learn the in's and out's of it: the opening of the Heart, the awakening of Cosmic Consciousness, the implications of the siddhis, the transcending of the many paradoxes, ... Enlightenment is only the beginning of a whole new adventure in living.
Let me know how you like Free Enlightenment and what your thoughts on it are.
Go to Top of Page
Argost
USA
9 Posts
Posted - Sep 07 2017 : 11:01:43 AM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
I'm sad to say that Wayne left his body last week. His last post is up on his blog. I discovered his website/writings through this thread a couple weeks after quitting a multi-year opiate addiction in March. His writings, especially Mystical Oneness, have been of great help. It was a big part of the many things that have allowed parts of me to open up and let me begin a daily AYP routine again.
My comment on his blog is marked as pending moderation but I wanted to put it out somewhere:
--
Two weeks ago I sent a donation to Wayne with a small note in the small character limit paypal allows. I?m glad I was able to tell him I thought Mystical Ones was an incredible book. I also linked him the coordinates of a place near Carter, WY ? telling him I thought of it as a special place if he was ever back through south west Wyoming. I grew up in the area, the land was always special. Native Americans made these lands home for many years. The bones of creatures that roamed the earth before humans fall out of the dirt and clay.
He replied in thanks for the words and donation. A week later I had the experience of reaching a deep state of samadhi for many hours. I awoke early to little sleep to buy burritos for myself and SO. The morning was beautiful.
I put on this podcast:
https://www.dharmaocean.org/episode-191-path-of-opening-down-part-i/
I was so greatful for being shown the wonder of THIS.
That Thursday I had a strong urge to write Wayne and tell him about the experience. I also wanted to make another donation in gratitude. After writing a lot of words the desire to actually send it left me. One part from the email I did want to share (trying to somehow tie all these words to his offer to let him know if I had any questions about things in the book):
?I was trying to think of a question that was meaningful to me at the moment. Things are rising and falling so quickly here that it was hard to find any important question. I have been stuck to the word ?remember? for a few weeks now. Since I first did yoga years ago when an instructor would talk of remembering I would get a faint joy in my heart. The answer seemed simple though ? remember my true nature. A little while ago I watched the cat tower bathed in light from the window. As the feeling of almost nostalgia and half remembered things came over me I felt joy at this sensation of remembering. I think this may be what I was trying to remember, hahah. ?
That was the day he left his body. I am so greatful he was able to leave these writings.
The only other thing I had wanted to share with him was reading this post on Michelle?s old blog:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160222051845/http://michellegrace.net/2015/02/10/love-as-healing/
I had wanted to say how much that post had opened my heart when reading it. I don?t know if the blog was put down for personal reasons or just lack of interest. I wanted to offer to help pay to keep it online if I could. I found many of the posts very helpful and it fills out some of the links in this blog.
Love and Gratitude,
Phil
--
Go to Top of Page
lalow33
USA
929 Posts
Posted - Sep 07 2017 : 1:08:09 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
Thank you Phil, for letting us know.
Go to Top of Page
lalow33
USA
929 Posts
Posted - Sep 07 2017 : 1:31:09 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
He committed suicide. Oh geez. Hmmmm....What to say? My nephew did that. I just hope everyone is at peace.
Go to Top of Page
BlueRaincoat
United Kingdom
1468 Posts
Posted - Sep 07 2017 : 4:54:49 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
I find it sad that he did not see any other option.
quote:
Do everything for Love and everything you do will make you happy.
Go to Top of Page
sunyata
USA
1388 Posts
Posted - Sep 07 2017 : 10:31:00 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
Hi Argost,
Thank you for this post. I used to follow his blog but hadn't visited for sometime. Very saddened by this news. May his soul RIP.
Go to Top of Page
SeySorciere
Seychelles
1140 Posts
Posted - Sep 08 2017 : 04:06:40 AM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
Reading from his posts above, it is more likely that he made a conscious exit.
Sey
Go to Top of Page
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts
Posted - Sep 08 2017 : 05:09:37 AM Show Profile Visit Bodhi Tree's Homepage Get a Link to this Reply
A textbook example of the pitfalls of non-relational self-inquiry.
Let me pick up a little slack here and fill in some of the gaps in regards to where Yogani has fallen short in defining the parameters of relational self-inquiry.
Relational self-inquiry is not just inquiry "occurring in stillness", which is a vague and ambiguous phrase that is not easily applied to practical situations. To be more precise: Healthy, non-suicidal, relational self-inquiry is a path of discovery and exploration which unites stillness/inner silence with the body, mind, ego, and full personality of a human being.
Let us be crystal clear, ladies and gentlemen. The ego is the vehicle of enlightenment, and in AYP, we do NOT support or condone the use of anti-ego rhetoric as a means to achieving genuine awakening or enlightenment. Nor do we support or condone taking an anti-attachment stance against the materialism implicit within life lived in an Earth body. Quite the contrary, we seek to illuminate, enrich, and nurture the material aspects of our Being. We don't have to rigorously fight attachments; we just have to befriend them and understand their proper role.
Suicide is a violent act against the material, physical body, and not recommended as a way to exit peacefully and gracefully. There are much better ways, even when the body and mind are suffering. Of course, everybody is free to choose, so to each his/her own. It's certainly not a black-and-white situation. There are shades of color and gray all about.
May the gentleman rest in peace, and find his way.
Go to Top of Page
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts
Posted - Sep 08 2017 : 05:24:20 AM Show Profile Visit Bodhi Tree's Homepage Get a Link to this Reply
Furthermore, the AYP path is not primarily about becoming a recluse or prisoner to self-imposed solitary confinement. It is much more about becoming intimate and affectionate with our friends, family, and broader network (appropriate boundaries notwithstanding).
AYP has been a vital part in steering my career into massage therapy, and it is by touching people's bodies that I get closer to Truth, to God, to Self, and to Love.
Go to Top of Page
Argost
USA
9 Posts
Posted - Sep 08 2017 : 12:55:21 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
I hope my post didn't come across as condoning anything. Jerry Freeman's comments were hard to read but worthwhile - likely some of those scars were still open wounds. Aspects of individualism, self-reliance, and isolation have been parts of my personality I've tried to find balance with most of my life. Maybe that was part of why I felt so drawn to his writings.
In a societal sense his death was a microcosm of the suffering of the disadvantaged in the US. I've seen too much of it in friends and acquaintances in a country that hardly lacks for resources. Some of Radharani's wonderful older posts say it much better than I can. I hope things begin to shift and change for the better - I truly hope they do and that in some small way I can be a part of that positive process.
Go to Top of Page
BlueRaincoat
United Kingdom
1468 Posts
Posted - Sep 08 2017 : 1:29:55 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
Dear Argost
The light in you recognized the light in him. Aren't we all enlightened underneath our unenlightenment?
He suffered excruciating pain.
"Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone"
quote:
Originally posted by Argost
I hope things begin to shift and change for the better - I truly hope they do and that in some small way I can be a part of that positive process.
Edited by - BlueRaincoat on Sep 08 2017 1:47:28 PM
Go to Top of Page
BlueRaincoat
United Kingdom
1468 Posts
Posted - Sep 08 2017 : 2:04:31 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
I am praying for his soul.
Shall we include Wayne into the Samyama list for a while?
Go to Top of Page
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts
Posted - Sep 08 2017 : 3:50:06 PM Show Profile Visit Bodhi Tree's Homepage Get a Link to this Reply
quote:
Originally posted by Argost
In a societal sense his death was a microcosm of the suffering of the disadvantaged in the US. I've seen too much of it in friends and acquaintances in a country that hardly lacks for resources. Some of Radharani's wonderful older posts say it much better than I can. I hope things begin to shift and change for the better - I truly hope they do and that in some small way I can be a part of that positive process.
We can change the world for the better by abiding by a code of principles and practices that lend themselves to utopian reality, and AYP is surely helping achieve that gradual transformation. If you are on board with daily Deep Meditation, Argost, you are well on your way to serving the mission and being part of the solution, so thank you.
But there comes a time when we need to delineate between the fruitful, liberating ideologies and the delusional, rotten ones. The philosophical underpinnings we hold in our heart and mind do indeed have consequences, and as we have seen in the unfortunate case of Wayne Wirs, those consequences can be tragic. So that is why I clearly stated the AYP viewpoint regarding the ego, the mind, attachments, and so forth. We are offering a baseline of solid and sturdy principles that the mind can use for good progress.
No one is immune to suffering in this life. Suffering is the fertilzer that we grow from. But we must absorb it appropriately, and that means we must regard our body, mind, ego, and unique personality to be as sacred as the nothingness that rests underneath external manifestation. That is true Oneness. That is true liberation.
The flesh is sacred. I will quote my spiritual and poetic father, Walt Whitman:
I have said that the soul is not more than the body,
And I have said that the body is not more than the soul,
And nothing, not God, is greater to one than one's self is.
The little self is as magical and worthy as the Big Self. Take it to heart, and know that we are on the leading edge of evolution in this band of scattered practitioners. We are willing to put in decades of work, play, and practice to show that enlightement is much more than a game of detachment and denial. It is an affirmation of our utmost potential, and we are riding that wave to increasing levels of creativity, genius, innovation, stillness in action, and of course, divine love.
Unity. Strength. Wisdom.
Go to Top of Page
Argost
USA
9 Posts
Posted - Sep 08 2017 : 7:24:28 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
@BlueRainCoat - Thank you
@Bodhi Tree - I guess my head is swirling with thoughts a bit. Things like dealing with my own (much much milder)hip/back injury for years and memories of people who've passed. Right now wrapping my mind around the moral/ethical/spiritual implications of someone taking their own life isn't something I feel pushed or pulled towards (except mostly how it relates to how I try to understand death/life in my own practices). Hell, Chogyam Trungpa was apparently quite mad near the end from alcoholism and I find him to be somehow a very important figure in my life. That's not to say I knew the minds of these men - I don't. Ultimately you're right, but I don't know the ultimate in that way.
--
http://waynewirs.com/2013/a-night-in-the-casino/
quote:
SANDIA CASINO, ALBUQUERQUE, NM?I stood in the casino and opened. It was busy, a Friday night, and all the tables were filled and the noise was loud and the slot machines were spinning with nonstop activity.
I leaned against the wall and sipped my drink and surrendered and opened and wished everyone luck and within seconds, a young woman came up to me and started to flirt but soon relaxed and moved past her intentions and told me of her upcoming settlement from a car accident and She spoke through this ?me? and told her not to squander it but use it to pursue her dream? the dream she?s always had since she was a little girl, the meaning of her life, and she looked at me and hugged me and smiled with a tear in her eye and gratitude on her face and suddenly hurried away in embarrassment.
Moments later a huge man walked up, towering over me and asked if I was a preacher. He said there was a light around me and that he liked my look, the flip flops and tee-shirt and jeans. He was mentally slow, but happy and he said he could see angels and he was drawn to me. He was very proud of his Saint Christopher?s medal, but I touched the peace symbol he also wore and pointed out that normally it is surrounded by a circle but his was encased in a heart and I/She/We looked him in the eye and made sure he was listening and said that peace always comes from the heart and never from the head and that he was very lucky in this way?far luckier than most.
I/She/We then pointed to the room filled with people placing chips and spinning slots and said each of these people has the Light within them also, but like a flower that has yet to bloom, their minds block this Light, and unlike you and I who know the Truth that the Light shines from the heart and not the head and he was silent a moment and then a glow came to his face and he smiled and grasped me in a huge hug and tears came to my eyes because I was so happy and grateful to have been there when She touched such a gentle soul.
Go to Top of Page
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts
Posted - Sep 08 2017 : 10:21:25 PM Show Profile Visit Bodhi Tree's Homepage Get a Link to this Reply
It's about the Ishta. It's about our vision and dream.
Yogani:
"If you apply what you learn, and keep at it, one day you will know that you are a perpetual bliss machine, capable of experience far beyond the imaginings of the mind. Oh yes, you really are. Meditation is the first step."
I came to AYP in 2010 while going through a divorce, quitting drugs & alcohol, and having a sober kundalini experience that gave me a glimpse and preview into how stellar our condition can be. Yogani's words resonated immediately, and I've never looked back. My experience at the France TTC this year has stoked and catalyzed my bhakti even further.
It's an open door. It's super-transparent and simple enough to understand and incorporate into daily life in an easy fashion. We are growing stronger each year, and the people who are sticking around for the long haul are amazing individuals. I'm lucky to be in personal contact with some of them. That's the gold. The prize. It's the people.
Wishing you the best, Argost! Keep your eyes on the prize. Or, as Yogani says: "Dare to dream, and dare to act on your dream."
Go to Top of Page
jusmail
India
455 Posts
Posted - Sep 09 2017 : 12:51:55 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
Wayne Wirs, may his soul rest in peace
Go to Top of Page
Blanche
USA
544 Posts
Posted - Sep 09 2017 : 9:49:55 PM Show Profile Visit Blanche's Homepage Get a Link to this Reply
Wayne Wirs, may you find your way back home
-
Argost
USA
9 Posts
Posted - Sep 10 2017 : 1:36:51 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
Bodhi, thanks - I'm doing my first my first retreat over the week of the winter solstice. Wish me luck
Go to Top of Page
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts
Posted - Sep 10 2017 : 2:26:04 PM Show Profile Visit Bodhi Tree's Homepage Get a Link to this Reply
Enjoy.
Go to Top of Page
BlueRaincoat
United Kingdom
1468 Posts
Posted - Sep 10 2017 : 3:22:43 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
What is your practice Argost? Do you have a meditation routine these days?
You are not saying who the retreat is with. Whichever teacher you choose, make sure he/she puts meditation firmly at the foundation of yoga practice.
All the best
Go to Top of Page
Argost
USA
9 Posts
Posted - Sep 10 2017 : 11:03:17 PM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
I found AYP in 2012 and have had streaks of off and on since then. I wanted to do an AYP retreat years ago but I was going to school and washing dishes so time and money were limited.
I'm doing this retreat:
https://www.dharmaocean.org/event/w...n-intensive/
They seem to have a strong focus on somatic meditation, which is where automatic meditation seems to be leading me anyway
I really hope to do an AYP retreat in the future, these lessons and forums are great
Go to Top of Page
BlueRaincoat
United Kingdom
1468 Posts
Posted - Sep 11 2017 : 04:36:44 AM Show Profile Get a Link to this Reply
All the best Argost! Let us know how you get on.