|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 08 2009 : 9:56:43 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 |
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2009 : 01:06:36 AM
|
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
Spain
1197 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2009 : 04:21:52 AM
|
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-yo...he-practice/) is absolutely amazing and powerful.Very,very interesting guy.
Thank you. |
Edited by - miguel on Nov 09 2009 05:43:20 AM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 09 2009 : 11:23:00 PM
|
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
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2009 : 01:00:24 AM
|
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
|
Edited by - Tibetan_Ice on Nov 10 2009 03:41:47 AM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2009 : 10:09:07 PM
|
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
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 10 2009 10:34:02 PM |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Nov 10 2009 : 10:47:53 PM
|
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
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 11 2009 : 01:57:50 AM
|
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/...heel407.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/trut...tenment.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...i/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
|
Edited by - Tibetan_Ice on Nov 11 2009 02:30:00 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4364 Posts |
Posted - Nov 11 2009 : 4:40:15 PM
|
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
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Nov 11 2009 : 10:29:18 PM
|
Whether he is enlightened or not (and who really cares...)...we can all enjoy his awesome photographs.
Thanks K-man! |
Edited by - machart on Nov 11 2009 10:40:37 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 11 2009 : 11:11:10 PM
|
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
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 11 2009 11:24:52 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2009 : 12:12:39 AM
|
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/...heel407.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/trut...tenment.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 |
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 12 2009 12:22:22 AM |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2009 : 12:26:10 AM
|
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/NewsArticl...ashanti.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
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2009 : 12:26:47 AM
|
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-yo...he-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 |
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 12 2009 6:56:10 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2009 : 12:55:12 AM
|
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
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 12 2009 9:00:00 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4364 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2009 : 4:08:12 PM
|
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.org/274.html
Christi
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2009 : 8:52:25 PM
|
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 .... ).
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.org/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!! 
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!!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2009 : 8:56:14 PM
|
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/confirmat...-adyashanti/ |
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 12 2009 8:58:27 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 12 2009 : 9:34:53 PM
|
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" ) 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" 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.
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 12 2009 9:37:25 PM |
|
|
|
stevenbhow
Japan
352 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2009 : 05:21:59 AM
|
| Be what you are not who you are. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4364 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2009 : 5:46:54 PM
|
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 |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4364 Posts |
Posted - Nov 13 2009 : 7:52:32 PM
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2009 : 12:19:15 AM
|
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
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 14 2009 01:00:18 AM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2009 : 12:59:08 AM
|
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
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 14 2009 01:09:55 AM |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2009 : 01:22:11 AM
|
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 |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4364 Posts |
Posted - Nov 14 2009 : 06:32:36 AM
|
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 |
Edited by - Christi on Nov 14 2009 06:40:39 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Wayne Wirs: Newly-Minted Enlightened Guy
Topic Locked
