Wayne Wirs: Newly-Minted Enlightened Guy

[Kirtanman]

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

[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[^]

[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.

[Kirtanman]

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

[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".

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

[Kirtanman]

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 (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.



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 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."





I hope this is helpful.

Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[Anthem]

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.

[Tibetan_Ice]

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

[Christi]

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

[machart]

Whether he is enlightened or not (and who really cares...)...we can all enjoy his awesome photographs.

Thanks K-man!

[Kirtanman]

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

[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.

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

[Tibetan_Ice]

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.  

[Kirtanman]

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

[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