|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 26 2009 : 11:13:33 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
As Wayne pointed out, a *huge* part of this issues stems from the mythologizing of enlightenment (over the centuries, and by many modern spiritual teachers, as well) ... people feel like someone they know/know of, can't "be enlightened", because:
A. "Enlightenment isn't like that!"
I think this is the whole issue here really. The truth is, we can't actually know can we? All we can actually say is, for me, right now, it is not like that. Or we could say, for me, right now, it is like that. We can't ever say, enlightenment is never like that, for anyone and anyone who says it is, is just plain mistaken. That is the beginning of attachment to fixed views and when fixed views are being held onto there can tend to be a lot of repetition in discussion, and even swearing. When attachment to fixed views is let go of, then real listening can start to happen.
We can say, "what I am experiencing now is really amazing, and incredible", but we can't say that even that experiencing will not evolve further. This is why I feel that staying open to all possibilities is an important ingredient with spiritual practice (even at the stage of unity consciousness), and is something that simply continues to evolve and become stronger, especially as subtle sensory experience becomes increasingly refined and we begin to get glimpses of our true divine potential.
Christi
|
 |
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2009 : 11:17:43 AM
|
| The realization of no-self is a door to something much more. |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2009 : 3:26:11 PM
|
Hi Christi :)
Thank you again for the information.
It is interesting that Yogani does point out the white light. Thank you Yogani. :)
quote:
I find the writings of Tao Malachi are very powerful, as he is obviously speaking from a very high place of realization. Even reading a few lines written by him can put someone into an overload state, so be careful and self-pace wisely.
Christi
This is most mysterious. I have never heard of Tau Malachi so I did a search on Google and found his forum. I found this right away:
quote:
The Gospel of Truth begins: "The proclamation of Truth is joy for those who have received Grace from the Father of Truth, that they might learn to know him through the power of the Word that emanated from the Pleroma of the Father's Thought and Intelligence..."
In Hebrew the word for Truth is Amet. If Aleph is removed from Amet it is Met, which means "death." Thus, Truth connotes Life, and by extension it connotes Light. Thus, the nature of the Truth, which is Logos-Word, is Life and Light. Truth-Amet is a name of Keter, the first Light-emanation on the Tree of Life, and it is called the emanation of Pure Grace. The root of the Word is in Keter-Crown, and it is the revelation of Keter - Divine or Supernal Being.
Thought and Intellect may be translated as Thought and Intelligence, which are names often given to Binah-Undestanding and Hokmah-Wisdom on the Tree of Life, the second and third Light-emanations, respectively. Thus the Pleroma or Fullness from which the Word emanates is the Supernal Abode, and the nature of the Word is Supernal Consciousness (Messianic Consciousness).
Essentially, the Father is Yahweh, the One Life-Power or Eheieh, I am or Divine Being, and the Son is the awakening of the One Life-Power or I am within individuals or creation; the awareness of the Sacred Unity that underlies all things.
The term "awareness of Sacred Unity" can be deceptive for it may imply a state of cosmic consciousness. Yet Supernal Consciousness is completely beyond cosmic consciousness. Cosmic consciousness is the peak ot the mental and vital being, but Supernal Consciousness is Supramental, beyond the mental being and all thought or desire; hence it is Pure Radiant Awareness or Non-dual Gnostic Awareness.
Thus, at the very outset of this Gospel the nature of the Messiah or Christ is clearly stated as Supernal Being-Consciousness-Force.
The nature of this Truth and Light is that of a spiritual nuclear fire - something more than the initial Light that comes from above. It is a Fiery Light that has the power to transform every level of being-consciousness, even the physical or material level of consciousness.
The prologue of the Gospel of Truth continues: "...the Word, who is spoken of as Savior: for that is the term for the work that he was to accomplish to ransom those who had fallen ignorant of the Father; while the term 'proclamation' refers to the manifestation of hope, a discovery for those who are searching for him."
Thus, the Savior is the Transforming Power of Supernal Consciousness-Force, and the nature of the proclamation is the reception of this Superior Light which enlightened and liberates the soul. This perfectly expresses the Gnostic idea of salvation through gnosis, and identifies the Truth Gospel as a Gnostic transmission and Light-transmission, hence the role of Initiation among gnostics.
The statement of the reception of the Supernal Light through the agency of Divine Grace is significant, for we prepare the vessel of reception, namely ourselves, through spiritual practice and the spiritual life. Likewise, receiving the influx of the Supernal Light we integrate it through spiritual practice and the spiritual life and are empowered to extend that Light in the world. Yet, it is not the spiritual practice and life which generates or imparts the True Light, but it is Grace that receives and imparts it - for the Light is a movement of Grace or the Holy Spirit (Mother Spirit). Thus, in essence, the Way of Christ is a "Yoga of Grace" (Union of Grace).
This is the quality of Gnosticism that makes it the perfect vehicle of enlightement for the Western person - for in the midst of a very active life, save through Grace, who would become enlightened and liberated?
This can prove a very powerful contemplation - where does it take your thoughts?
Blessings & shalom!
_________________
Tau Malachi
I bolded the first line that I bolder because it fits into this discussion about enlightenment.
I bolded the second line because when I see the white light breaking out of objects and forms, that is what it feels like: nuclear fire :) That's not to say I've ever experienced a nuclear blast, but the result is that you feel like there is a very potent force burning you and the effect lasts a long time. Now where did I put my sunglasses..:)
And now I understand more about the sleepless nights, for, during the daytime of those sleepless nights, watching the light move inside my body, I recall that my bhakti had been turned up during those days and that I had seen that nuclear light during those days.
Thanks Christi :)
TI
|
Edited by - Tibetan_Ice on Nov 26 2009 3:51:43 PM |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2009 : 11:21:16 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman :)
Just a small technical point. I don't want people to get the wrong impression and I can't tell if you are joking or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
And if I want to refresh myself on clever non-dualism, I will consult Tolle. :) And if I want to stretch my brain I will remember Hegelian dialectics..
quote:
Sounds like a plan; enjoy!
(Jeez; you don't like Tolle, either?  )
I love Eckhart Tolle. He is the world's best therapist. If you get a chance, perhaps you could read "A New Earth" (or get the CD's and dump them to mp3). If you like humour and laughing at yourself, you'll love this too.
quote:
What's so unattractive about the plainly-spoken experience of non-duality?
Nothing. Non-duality and the experience of non-duality, being the mental constructs that they are, limited by words and the constricted mind, are forms, have been rendered into forms and that is their limitation. To pretend to understand Non-duality is a function of the ego and the insidious mind working in a concerted effort. (you've probably said that many times yourself).
On a very basic level, it is easy to understand the spectrum of good and bad, or right and left, hence dualism at a basic level, but these are conveniences for the human mind. If one pursues the enigma, one discovers that something can be both good and bad at the same time.
But with regards to my reference to Hegel, this is what had come to mind:
quote:
In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one's living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.[21]
from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
This is an overview of dialectics (sounds kind of like what we were doing.. ) :)
quote:
Dialectics is based around three (or four) basic metaphysical concepts:
1.Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians).
2.Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
3.Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
4.Change moves in spirals (or helixes), not circles. (Sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation")
Within this broad qualification, dialectics has a rich and varied history. It has been stated that the history of dialectic is identical to the extensive history of philosophy.[1]. The basic idea is perhaps already present in Heraclitus of Ephesus, who held that all is in constant change, as a result of inner strife and opposition.[2] [4] Only fragments of his works and commentary remain, however.
The aim of the dialectical method is resolution of the disagreement through rational discussion,[5][6] and ultimately the search for truth. One way to proceed — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth (see also reductio ad absurdum). Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of both the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis or "sublation". However, the rejection of the participant's presuppositions can be resisted, which might generate a second-order controversy.[7]
So you see, nothing in the world of form exists without contradiction or opposing forces. Dualism (thesis) and Non-Dualism (antithesis) have been synthesized! Hence my assertion that truth has no contradictions..
And again, "What's so unattractive about the plainly-spoken experience of non-duality?". I believe it's called philosophy. :)
Again, thank you for your time.
:)
TI
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2009 : 11:24:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
This is most mysterious. I have never heard of Tau Malachi so I did a search on Google and found his forum.
Hi TI,
I have just a few minutes right now, but wanted to send you a quick reply, specifically to say two things:
1. I've enjoyed our discussion, too ... and have learned some things as well; thanks!
2. It occurred to me that per your deep connection with Jesus, and per your interest in both the miraculous and enlightenment .... that you might resonate very much with the teachings of Tau Malachi ... and I was going to post a link to his forum (which I'll do anyway, for anyone else who may be interested) ... but I see Google & Christi have already beat me to it (which is every bit as good, of course ... I just wanted to be sure you knew of the resource!)
Tau Malachi has a background in Gnostic Christian Kabbalah (Kabbalah, as you may know, being the mystical/yogic path of Judaism), the original Kabbalah of Judaism (his path, Sophian Gnosticism ... is Christian Kabbalah.
I outlined it from a yogic/tantric perspective a while back, in a thread called Yogic Christianity, if you're interested.
Also, if you do a search here at the forum on Tau Malachi (primarily with Kirtanman in the member field of the search page, though Christi has mentioned him as well; not sure about anyone else) ... you'll find a bunch of posts from me on Tau Malachi ... and the value on non-dual Sophian Gnosticism/Gnostic Christian Kabbalah in general, and the teachings of Tau Malachi in particular ... and how they relate to enjoying enlightenment & AYP, etc., from my perspective, as well.
I hope this is helpful; thanks again for the very interesting conversation, TI!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2009 : 05:45:15 AM
|
quote:
The statement of the reception of the Supernal Light through the agency of Divine Grace is significant, for we prepare the vessel of reception, namely ourselves, through spiritual practice and the spiritual life. Likewise, receiving the influx of the Supernal Light we integrate it through spiritual practice and the spiritual life and are empowered to extend that Light in the world. Yet, it is not the spiritual practice and life which generates or imparts the True Light, but it is Grace that receives and imparts it - for the Light is a movement of Grace or the Holy Spirit (Mother Spirit). Thus, in essence, the Way of Christ is a "Yoga of Grace" (Union of Grace). [Tao Malachi]
Hi TI,
Thanks for posting that quote from Tau Malachi, I didn't know that he had a website.
I think that line sums up a lot about the Christ consciousness stage of enlightenment. After self-realization, which is a shift in identification from the unreal to the real, and is essentially a passive process, there is a dynamic process where the body becomes a vessel and channel for the divine light, force and power. Eventually the body becomes nothing but this divine light, force and power as you will know if you have met Jesus Christ.
quote:
The nature of this Truth and Light is that of a spiritual nuclear fire - something more than the initial Light that comes from above. It is a Fiery Light that has the power to transform every level of being-consciousness, even the physical or material level of consciousness. [Tao Malachi]
The light that Tao Malachi refers to as "the initial light that comes from above", is a spiritual light which comes down through the crown chakra into the heart. It is a very intense and bright white light which is sometimes referred to as the Paramatma light. The Fiery Light that Tao Malachi refers to as being like a nuclear force, is a divine light which emanates from God. Normally we are shielded from this light by divine grace, until we have prepared ourself sufficiently to receive the force of its full power and glory. In my experience this light also radiates from (shines through) the body and spiritual heart of a Christed being and through the Christed one, can more easily reach the soul of a person lost in darkness.
Christi |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2009 : 1:05:37 PM
|
Hi All,
Here's a cool "gorillastration" Wayne Wirs just posted on his blog:
Once upon a time a young gorilla left her baby alone for only a moment and a wolf came along and ate her baby. The mother gorilla was terribly heart-broken and filled with remorse.
A few days later, still in mourning, the gorilla came upon a softly glowing orb laying on the forest floor. Plagued with guilt and a strong maternal instinct, she promptly adopted the radiant orb. 24-hours a day she held it tightly in her arms, protecting it from all dangers. She nurtured the orb, and gave it anything that she thought it might desire. Never again would she leave her new baby!
When she saw danger (or even thought about danger), she would hug the orb tightly to her breast and flee into the forest. When she saw another gorilla with something she thought her orb might want, she would howl and scream and slap at the other gorilla until it relinquished it.
Though it was constantly tugged and pulled and jostled about in all directions by the mother gorilla’s actions, the orb continued to glow serenely.
You of course, are the softly glowing orb. An orb in which a giant, 900-pound, deranged, psychotic, and over-protective mother gorilla has adopted.
A gorilla that has you completely enshrouded in her arms–smothering you, blocking your radiant light. All because she cares too much.
Even though you want nothing, she is constantly trying to acquire new and exciting things for you.
Even though you fear nothing, she is constantly trying to protect you from imaginary dangers.
She is smothering you. She is choking off your life force.
See the gorilla. Feel her. Recognize when she is pulling and tugging and jostling you. See her clearly and you’ll soon be free of her.
You are not the gorilla.
You are the orb. You always have been.
Source: http://waynewirs.com/2009/the-ego-gorilla/ |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2009 : 1:18:05 PM
|
Hi TI,
Here is an interesting quote from Yogani on the relationship between enlightenmnet and omnipresence:
"In that sense, the purification process is never done, not until we have become purified everywhere, to the furtherest reaches of the cosmos. It is not so difficult, since mind via samyama travels infinitely faster than the speed of light....
The infinite speed (or omnipresence) of mind becomes much more significant and useful as samyama advances. It is what core and cosmic samyama practices are about. Stillness in action and outpouring divine love everywhere ... and that means everywhere. We are That."
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....page=2#40898
As I understand it the omniscient aspect of enlightenmnet is related to the omnipresent aspect because, after all, if we are everywhere, then we will know, and be, everything. The omnipotent aspect of the enlightenmnet process, I believe, comes through fully surrendering to, and becoming a channel of divine love. This is because ultimately, divine love is the power and force of the principle of creation in the universe and as we surrender more and more to That, we become increasingly, a channel of that divine power.
Christi |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2009 : 9:32:58 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman :)
I was going to ask you. I have this little book called "The Secret Teachings Of Jesus - Four Gnostic Gospels, translated by Marvin W. Meyer. Apparently, two Egyptians found manuscripts in Upper Egypt that have come to known as "Nag Hammadi" library.
Do you think the book is valid and represents authentic sayings by Jesus?
Just curious..
Thanks.
:)
TI |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2009 : 9:52:46 PM
|
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
As Wayne pointed out, a *huge* part of this issues stems from the mythologizing of enlightenment (over the centuries, and by many modern spiritual teachers, as well) ... people feel like someone they know/know of, can't "be enlightened", because:
A. "Enlightenment isn't like that!"
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I think this is the whole issue here really. The truth is, we can't actually know can we?
Know what?
If there's the experience of enlightenment, or not?
We certainly can and do know the experiencing of what some are comfortable calling enlightenment, in the sense that all the wisdom traditions of the world say that the pinnacle of its teaching (call it enlightenment, liberation, christ-consciousness, buddha-nature, self-realization, god-realization or what have you) has certain characteristics ....
*The cessation of the story-of-me, along with all its artificial, distorted, reactive self-references ... and all the anxiety, anger, fear, lust, greed, ignorance, depression, pushing back, pushing away, attempting to get, attempting to protect, manipulation, attachment, aversion, control, war, pestilence, famine, suffering and so on ..... *all* of which are seen/experienced to have arisen from a conditioned/mistaken concept of self ... a mistaken idea.
*The experience of oneness (not as a concept; the *experience* of oneness/harmony/connectedness .... it *feels* different; ego is kind of like living in an ill-fitting, never-quite-completely comfortable whole-body-mind glove ... enlightenment {yes, I said it ....} is like being naked and sweetly held/sweetly holding the Beloved/Life itself ... even when being pissed-off (Wayne) or actively barfing (me) ... not in an air-fairy "it's all so bee-yoo-tiful" sense .... but rather, just in a sense of actual union with all, living unbound, the feeling of which is something that mind can't understand ... and even if it could ... it wouldn't be accurate, because *any* knowledge-as-object is removed from actuality .... in the same exact way a dot on a map is not the city it represents ... or the item on the menu is not the food itself.
*Effortless experience of flow/harmony with all, as all is happening now ... the feeling of being "with" all, this moment ... as opposed to paddling against the current, or trying to "get" somewhere.
*The experiencing, as Wayne so clearly put it: "I am what is happening right now" ... or as the Kabbalists say: "The glory of Hashem {God/The Name/Enlightenment/Self} fits like a hand in a glove" .... the utter absence of internal or external conflict ... no matter what is going on, now.
*An effortless sense of outward connection (as opposed to the "what's in it for me"-sense that never quite goes away, while ego-story is still confused with reality) ... the "outpouring of divine love" and the "living for others" that Yogani refers to in the AYP Lessons. And, with all consummate respect to/for Yogani, always ... while "outpouring of divine love" is accurate .... some minds might tend to romanticize that phrasing just a bit (the-error-formerly-known-as-Kirtanman's-mind sure did!  .... not to mention the tendency to compare insanely and inanely (well, there's loving ... but is it *divine*? And is this outpouring, or .... not?).
In experiencing, now, there's no wondering .... about anything ... and it's like a flip switched ... from being the hand reaching for something ... to being the extending hand .... the actual conscious becoming-knowing of that which the me-thought thought it was seeking ... and it all happens in one seamless kinda motion when it finally happens).
*Living for others/the all -- I used to wonder *how* in the world I was going to "live solely for others" .... I was just *way* too selfishly minded (literally) to ever get how *that* was gonna happen. Guess what? It happened .... not in any kind of "I am now so *awesomely holy* {ah-so-hole-y, for short } conceptual-garbage way ... just in "in the absence of the ego-story, the same connectedness with all, that all life is living, now ... is actually the natural human experiencing, as well .... who knew??" ).
*Peace, which passes all understanding (because if it doesn't it can't be real or inherent; true peace is found in original awareness, prior to the artificial divisions of conditioned-conceptual me-stories).
*Freedom beyond imagination, literally .... when reliance and mis-placed belief in imagination dissolves, probably 95% of all available energy which was frozen in the dream of ego ... is liberated ... and living unbound is the natural state of life, now .... not in a Woo-Hoo way .... just in an actual way. As I've said before: liberation isn't supernatural .... but it is liberation.
*The shift/switch from life being fundamentally about getting, to being fundamentally about giving .... and again: not at *all* in the way mind imagines. It's not about being "saintly" ... it's about being *real* ..... the "me" who wanted whatever it wanted (the "me" *is* "wanting, incarnate") including enlightenment ..... was an error; it's not real ...... and when it's gone, it changes everything ......... including the idea of being a "me" who needs to get/protect in order to fulfill itself/live.
.... and one of the few reasons I "dare" to be "spiritually incorrect" (analogous to politically incorrect) here, is:
All wisdom traditions *do* speak of oneness, peace, unconditional love, presence, awareness .... and several other qualities which represent the goal/purpose of those wisdom traditions ........ as do modern/living teachers, including Adyashanti, Yogani, Tau Malachi .... and quite a few others.
If enlightenment wasn't real ... and if it wasn't utterly life-changing/life-creating .... there wouldn't be the consistency in emphasis, description or experience ... by all who experience the benefits of the cessation of the error of limited-self in actuality, now.
There may not be an *exact* place where the line can be drawn (enlightenment is more about the erasing of lines, than the drawing of them, anyway) .... but there's absolutely an experiential shifting of the fundamental experiencing of life ..... that anyone who's every experienced it fully, even for a moment .... would/will/does ... literally and gladly give their life, in order to have-share-be.
I (and Wayne, and Yogani, and whoever else) .... quite literally cannot refrain from expressing this; it's part of the deal .... it just happens; if there's ever been someone who somehow "claims" enlightenment .... and then doesn't speak of it, out of fear (of offending people; of stepping on someone's concepts, etc.) .... that's not enlightenment ..... because only the me-story would feel the need to do such a thing, in the first place.
Truth is truth; we're all it ...... and the part of All that knows itself, naturally expresses this to the part of All that may not be consciously experiencing this yet .... that it may be consciously experienced by all.
The nature of anything can be known by what it creates.
How do you know if it's a dog? Easy: does it have the capacity and the inclination to make dogs? (This an analogy, now; neutering is not part of the discussion ..... )
How do you know if it's a me-story? Easy .... does it have the capacity and the inclination to make me-stories? (More commonly known as "people", "human beings", etc.)
Even emotions or energies do it .... laughter tends to create laughter; sexual arousal tends to create sexual arousal; kindness tends to create kindness ....
.... and enlightenment is capable of, and inherently inclined to .... create enlightenment .... to wake up ..... to invite ... the parts of itself (within all) that is not consciously enlightened (aware of its own true nature, free from suffering, etc.) .... and never in a "teachy-preachy" way (which is always ego-based) ... and never in an attached way; solely in a "this is what happens", way.
We're literally talking about the end of all suffering in a given human life, here, for real .... helping and inviting others to experience this ... even if one other person who ever reads these words experiences enlightenment because of these words .... is more than worth a little conceptually-generated discomfort, if any ego has any, don't you agree?
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
We can't ever say, enlightenment is never like that, for anyone and anyone who says it is, is just plain mistaken. That is the beginning of attachment to fixed views and when fixed views are being held onto there can tend to be a lot of repetition in discussion, and even swearing.
Um ... "Oh, My!!"
I'm not to sure what to say, here .... because I'm not quite sure exactly what you're saying, other than to guess that the statement of yours, quoted above, is a commentary on on our dialog, and or my dialog with TI (repetition in discussion) and/or Wayne's comments (swearing) ... {?}, in this thread .... along with the intimation that "fixed views" have been part of the overall dialog (with this, I agree ....)
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
When attachment to fixed views is let go of, then real listening can start to happen.
Hey ... I agree some more!!
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
We can say, "what I am experiencing now is really amazing, and incredible", but we can't say that even that experiencing will not evolve further.
Well, of course .... that would be, well .... silly, to say the least; not to mention unenlightened.
How can I say that?
Because one "symptom" of enlightenment is non-interest in fixed views, and non-attachment to fixed views ...... literally; if enlightenment has any single, identifying factor, it would be: no attachment to conceptual views or opinions ... and inversely, unenlightenment, if it were to be said to have a single identifying factor, would be "attachment to conceptual views or opinions, including sense of self, on some level of consciousness" (i.e. we've all seen people who seem to be enlightened ... or, at least "spiritually mature" ... but then something that is an effect of the conceptual error of unenlightenment {lust, greed, anger, etc.} gets triggered, based on something still resident in the body-mind, somewhere ... even in unconscious/subconscious memory ... and there's {scandal/meltdown/ashram much more fun than it used to be/whatever ....}.
And, very seriously -- your comment, and my response speak to a very fundamental point concerning the nature of enlightenment, so I'll see if I can clarify, once and for all:
One of the hallmarks of enlightenment is experiencing the true nature of the self; it's not known as an object; it's wholeness of experiencing ("I am what is happening right now", as Wayne wrote).
Mind can't get what "knowing true nature" really means; it's not like "Ah HA! I am the Great One Self of the Universe, and I thought I was a mere mortal!! Bwahhahahaha!!" .... it's much more like: "Oh My God ..... I thought I was actually limited to and by all those inconsistent yet uncomfortable thoughts about myself!! I felt like I was actually the sum total of all those *ideas* .... I thought and felt that all that positionality and self-reference was real and true, in some sense: "How does this affect *ME*? How does this affect MY Comfort ... MY Happiness ... My Cherished Beliefs & Opinions Which Are Right and True and Me??"
I literally dreamed that somehow all those thought-dream reactions were *real* .... that it had something to do with what I actually am.
And so, enlightenment isn't the knowing what I actually am *instead* of that crazy dream of partiality; it's the unknowing of that crazy dream ... period. When the dream is released, and actual waking up happens ... I am just who I actually am ..... which is much more the awareness than the form, yet somehow both, yet somehow neither .... (who knows, who cares?) ... and it doesn't matter ...... I am actually what is happening this moment; it's always, ever this way .... awareness experiencing this moment ... yet there's a difference ...... or, rather .... a non-difference:
Before enlightenment, there was an artificial layer of concepts, occluding actuality ... and creating suffering/discomfort .... the inability to ever feel whole, now.
That artificial layer dissolved a few weeks back .... and, as Adyashanti says "it's like a tiny little step to the side ..... but it changes everything."
Where there was anxiety, there is peace.
Where there was fear, there is peace.
Where there was depression, there is peace.
Where there was ecstasy, there is peace.
Where there was hope, there is peace.
Where there was ping-ponging between the memory-ideas of the past, and imagination-ideas of the future, there is peace-as-presence, now.
Where there was conceptual separation, there is actual union.
Where there was fear of death (on one level or another), there is loving living unbound now.
And that underlying sense of "not ever fully right; not ever fully satisfying" ... for more than a handful of moments .... is .... gone ..... and instead of that ... there is peace.
It's not so much a "knowing I'm enlightened" as it is "feeling enlightenment".
Have you (anyone reading) ever had the thought:
"Life has GOT to be BETTER than this!!"
I lived from that single thought for decades; the sheer (conceptual, it turns out ... ) *wrongness* of it all *had* to be wrong ...... and I tried *everything* in order to try to find out: sex, drugs, rock n roll; conservative political and religious lifestyles; hedonistic lifestyles; making money; having prestigious social positions ..... and you know what I found out?
NOBODY (outside of enlightenment) is truly, completely happy/at peace.
If you think money/power/love/sex/fame/status/whatever ...... will fill the aching void .... it won't (and I know many of you know this, of course).
My point is:
When I got a whiff of enlightenment being something *actual* .... that somehow, humanity *does* live in a dream, an illusion .... and that there is a reality, the experiencing of which, gives us all the things that feel like they should be part of life (loving, wholeness, happiness, peace, unity, etc.) .... and that I could somehow have it ........ it was Game Over; enlightenment was the only thing that mattered to me, as of maybe seven or so years ago.
I had a few false starts; a few cul-de-sacs and wrong turns (all stemming from, now that I look back on it ... from not even knowing that the "dream of the conceptual me" was the core issue/error preventing enlightenment) ... but once I found and practiced AYP ... the gains were steady and consistent .... the sense of opening to actual enlightenment/moving in an ever more conscious direction ... was simply true.
There were "dead spots"; there was impatience; there was over-the-top ecstasy and many, many tears of gratitude ... and a few of terror ... and a few of grief'; there were several points of: "Oh ... this awareness; this ... this is enlightenment" .... and I was wrong ... as evidenced by experiential discomfort returning, before long, no matter how lofty the attainment felt, or how clear the realization seemed to be.
There was an ever greater opening into loving, into clarity ... and into an ever-deepening sense that awareness and loving are part of the same movement of this that I somehow am ..... yet there still seemed to be something to "get" ... it's like Adya says: "I was ready to plant my flag, but this little voice said: not yet; this isn't it ...." .... and he identifies this sense, which came up repeatedly (as it did for me) as one of the most valuable things on his entire spiritual journey.
Finally, in the last year or so .... I got into kind of an easy-yet-consistent rhythm .... I was in this for the long haul, for real, for life .... no matter what; enlightenment wasn't the most important thing in life .... it was the only important thing (if I'm not living in reality; if freedom-from-all-suffering is available, and I'm not experiencing it ...... what matters, until I do?) .... yet, it began to be lived in a much more patient "if it takes some years, that's okay .... I am going to get there".
(Understanding that "getting there" is more a release, an unclutching .... a melting ... rather than an actual "going somewhere".)
And so, impatience dissolved, awareness increased ... and commitment was total.
And, a few weeks back:
It actually happened.
As I've said in another thread: it's like all the sand ran out of the hourglass.
And the result is: everything I read, hear or see, of what any enlightened teacher, be it Yogani, Adyashanti, Tau Malachi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Eckhart Tolle, Paramahamsa Nithyananda or Ramana Maharshi ... or Daniel Odier, or Abhinavagupta, or Swami Lakshmanjoo ..... says of enlightenment .... now *feels* like what I'm experiencing.
The dissolving of that fundamental error .... forced and reinforced throughout every moment of my life ... into-as every little iota of mind, memory, imagination, intellect and ego .......... revealed this that every wisdom tradition speaks of:
*A peace far beyond what my mind ever could have conceived, in every moment.
*A genuine sense of connection with, and intending only the best for all ... *naturally* ... *effortlessly* ... without any remnants of the ego-idea ... it's simply what is here; simply how awareness is moving, now.
*No fear ... at all; it's almost like I can't exactly remember fear .... what could it have come from? What did it feel like? I can't really remember.
*No conflict; with anyone ... on any level; not in actions or relationships; not in thoughts or feelings ..... just ... harmony .... moving with actuality; not against it, in anyway.
*Loving ... genuine loving; that which is truly, naturally helpful ... is what is naturally here ..... and candidly, it may be that others are naturally less selfish than "ego here".... but prior to a few weeks back, while it was "largely like that" ..... it was a long way from ever being *completely* like that ... by a long shot; I still very much wanted what *I* wanted .... even though that wanting was often in harmony with higher principles; I still often felt like an "I" who wanted .... even if it was wanting enlightenment.
There's no wanting, now; zero; I have this moment -- I *am* this moment; what could wanting be about??
There's no more "being present" .... I am presence; "before now" and "not now yet" are states of mind that don't hold much interest ... and which are experienced as what they actually are: states of mind, now.
My friends .............. my Self ........... open your hearts, please and just allow listening, in the privacy of wherever you're reading this:
My only purpose in telling you all this is so that you can experience it, too.
Life free from suffering is available to you.
Living every moment free from anxiety and free from fear ... and happily, calmly and abundantly radiating loving, peace, goodwill and simple happiness every single moment .... is available to you .... sooner than you think .... sooner than you can think.
And so much more completely ....
And so much more actually ....
... than you can imagine.
Enlightenment is real.
Enlightenment is all that's real.
And you can have it.
That is all.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
This is why I feel that staying open to all possibilities is an important ingredient with spiritual practice (even at the stage of unity consciousness), and is something that simply continues to evolve and become stronger, especially as subtle sensory experience becomes increasingly refined and we begin to get glimpses of our true divine potential.
Christi
I fully agree, Christi; and I'm guessing that almost anyone else who is experiencing enlightenment, or something of it, does, too ..... not that it matters.
The reason communication about enlightenment ... especially between those who may be experiencing what some would call "enlightenment" (as described above), and those who are conceiving of enlightenment (and I'm not sure what your experiencing is, with respect to enlightenment ... you haven't said ... and I respect that ... ) .... is often difficult, is:
The experiencing of it is so very different than all the concepts and pointers ... not because very intelligent and in many cases, enlightened people .... haven't done their very best to communicate enlightenment well ....but it's much like communicating the experience of swimming in the ocean ... or having sex ... or doing acid ..... to someone who has never done those things ... not even necessarily at the same time (I tried; I swallowed too much salt water, and gave up ....... ).
There's just no frame of reference ... really.
Pertinent example:
Wayne may have sounded "closed" to the idea of "further development" ... but I can tell you: that isn't it, at all (and I'm not "speaking for Wayne", here ... I'm speaking from the experiencing of what {Wayne and I, Yogani, Adyashanti, etc. *generally* refer to as "enlightenment" ... and I get how it works) .... when ego-story drops, there's not enough conceptual energy available *to* relate to the conceptual .... at *all* .... in terms of attachment *or* aversion to *any* fixed view ... of any kind; that's what's been seen through.
It's like: after puberty, the dynamics of prepubescent physiology simply don't apply any longer.
And so, if I was referring to another adult, physically ... I could say that he or she has pubic hair, that he or she has a monthly period, or gets erections, or whatever (presuming there was no reason to think anything abnormal existed; as in: this is the *normal* physiological condition of physically mature adults, of each respective gender).
And the same is true of enlightenment: inability to project attachment to the conceptual is fundamental to enlightenment ... regardless of what the "conceptual attachment" would be about.
And so, when Wayne said: "I can't walk on water", etc. etc. ..... he wasn't saying "And so, I'm closed to the possibility of further opening or development in any way" ..... those two things simply aren't connected.
I'm not sure I could even define "true divine potential" .... other than to say:
The knowing true nature which is the *absence* of untrue nature, not replaced by anything else .... and therefore, the natural state of conscious awareness .... is completion, experientially.
To experience enlightenment as completion is not to be "closed off" to (quote unquote) "further development" ...... yet neither is it to artificially generate any energy for imagination "further development".
It's more that "life knows what it's doing" .... and it doesn't need my ideas of what's real or unreal to "help it along".
Yet, I agree completely that further opening/experiencing/unfolding/expanding .... whatever it might be termed ... is both obvious, and experienced, now.
It's more like: the dream that was the ice of ego-story that was blocking the free flow of the river of living awareness now is finally melted ... is finally simply the river again now ... and is flowing freely ... knowing-being the flowing now ... utterly unconcerned with where it has been ... or where it is flowing; being the flowing now is complete; it's what the river is ever actually here for, now.
And so: experiencing being the river .... is real, permanent and complete; knowing that flowing ("further development") is what's happening is an inherent part of being the river, now; the two (knowing self, releasing anything fixed or static as artificial and untrue) are actually one river ... there's no either/or ... just this living loving river now ... which beats the heck outta the frozen dream of partiality.
And, of course, while enlightenment is most certainly real ...... *I* am most certainly *not* .... and therefore any .... issues than any create any sense of conceptual discomfort for anyone reading .... can be easily released.
Conceptually .... it could possibly seem quite ridiculous for "Kirtanman to say he's enlightened" ...... but please know:
It would not only be ever bit as ridiculous ..... it would be impossible .... for Kirtanman not to happily tell you of the experiencing that some might call "enlightenment".
Do I (quote-unquote) care if I'm enlightened ... or if you (whoever is reading) thinks I'm enlightened?
Not at all; I'm literally chuckling as I type these words; it's not about that ... it never has been; not for a minute.
There's experiencing here that is utterly amazing ..... as described above; if anyone doubts it's real ..... doubt no longer.
Yogani is just a "regular person" ... and so is Adyashanti; so's Tau Malachi .... but for most people here, they're teachers ... they're at the place we've been trying to "get to" .... and for some, there may not be an inherent sense of "Hey, if they can do it, I can do it, too!!"
Whereas, with *me* on the other hand ..... I'm hoping/guessing that it may not seem quite the same ... I'm "one of us" .... and I walked in off the (virtual) street, about three years ago .... and I'm experiencing the (general) "full fruits" of every spiritual system.
And, by the way: I've gotten the impression that some might feel that if I intimate the enlightenment is experienced here, that I'm somehow "above or beyond" this group ..... and nothing could be farther from the truth; I've gone from being "one of us" .... to being "one of us", completely; no conceptual blocks to occlude the actuality of the the connection, here.
When you see the statement "enlightenment is dropping the story of me, the story called ego" .... what that actually means is: "enlightenment is dropping the story of me, the story called ego"; it doesn't mean one automatically thinks they're a teacher or a guru, or becomes one; it doesn't mean one is "above" anyone else (in their own mind, or in relation to others) ... it doesn't *mean* anything ..... it's just what happens .... the story of me finally dissolves ..... and living every moment in a condition that is more fulfilled, more peace-filled, more loving, more enjoyable and more wonderful than mind can imagine .... even when actively barfing .... ..... which replaces the always-at-least-a-little-unpleasant on some level (even if it's the fear that the awesomeness of a wonderful moment will be lost, somehow) dream of the me-story.
And it's not "choirs of angels" wonderful; it's the utter relief of experiencing ..... experiencing ....... that all that suffering was actually illusion; actually a dream .... and that simple, actually, suffering-free living, full of simple peace, goodwill, acceptance and happiness .... is what we're really here to live, now.
Really.
None of us were born to suffer or feel incomplete ........ that's the dream; enlightenment is natural ..... enlightenment is real ..... enlightenment is who we each and all actually are, now .... behind the dream of partiality-mind.
It's one thing to imagine the peace I describe ..... and to imagine the ability to perform amazing siddhi/miracles, or whatever .... there was a time here when the latter was more interesting, for sure.
But it's quite another to experience it.
Maybe miraculous siddhis are real .... there are so many stories, after all (that some would say "they must be real", and some, such as myself, have said "but it's interesting that hardly anyone has *experienced* them" -- though now, there's not even that evaluation; they're just not interesting, nothing not-now, is, really) ....... but I'm telling you, in-from experiencing:
The peace, the freedom, the end of suffering, the end of the dream of being a partial-separate "me-story", the beginning of living unbound .... is real ... and is as available to you as it was/is to me .... we're all "it" ... all we have to do is "leggo the ego" .... with some likely help from practices/persistence.
There's no one here who is not born to be enlightened.
I'd bet my life on it.
In fact, I did.
How'd that work out for me?
"See above."
And once again: it doesn't matter how it worked out for me ....... I'm just sharing my experiencing, to help you know how it can work out for you, really.
And, my friends ...... I've known millionaires; I've hung out with the rich and the famous; I've had the titles, and the fat paychecks, and the wild weekends .... in short ... nearly every experience a human being can have, and so I'm confident when I say:
If you could experience even ten seconds of what I'm actually referring to ... understanding that it can be the regular, ongoing experience of all day, every day ... and it just keeps getting better and better and better ..... not in an "over the top way" ..... just in a way that's true, real, actual and simply wonderful ....... ten seconds ....... and you were told all you had to do was live a thousand difficult lifetimes to have it .... you wouldn't even blink ... you'd jump at the chance .... and you'd call it a bargain ..... the best you ever had.
I don't mind telling you all:
I have tears streaming down my cheeks right now, and a smile of happy, genuine loving confidence on my face ... and loving unbound gently shining from my heart, in love and respect for you all.
Enlightenment is real.
Enlightenment can be real in your experiencing.
And when you get here ... you'll invite people, too.
How good is it, really?
If I was offered all the money, fame, power, sex, prestige and everything else in exchange, I'd literally laugh; this simple, peaceful loving oneness can't be for sale at any price .... reality isn't a "thing" .... it's what's actually here.
Which is the last thing I'll say, now:
There's no "thing" called enlightenment; what we're calling enlightenment is the natural state that's always already here .... and once the artificial, unnatural dream-state is released ..... it's what is already here; humanity is glorious; living is glorious; the power of the occluding idea-called-me is that powerful ... and that unreal.
And, very truthfully:
I could care less if I've convinced anyone that "I'm enlightened" ... or even that "enlightenment is real" ..... concepts don't matter; not any of them.
But ..... could I be even a little bit right ......... that what I describe above can be your experiencing, too?
And .... do you feel like it might ... just possibly .... be worth finding out?
If so ..... then I'm truly grateful for the opportunity to share this experiencing; all of this, with all of you.
_/\_ |
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 27 2009 10:01:09 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2009 : 10:17:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
Hi Kirtanman :)
I was going to ask you. I have this little book called "The Secret Teachings Of Jesus - Four Gnostic Gospels, translated by Marvin W. Meyer. Apparently, two Egyptians found manuscripts in Upper Egypt that have come to known as "Nag Hammadi" library.
Do you think the book is valid and represents authentic sayings by Jesus?
Just curious..
Thanks.
:)
TI
Hi TI,
I don't know much about those specific translations, or about that translator (sounds like he was the original one translator?) .... but the Nag Hammadi manuscripts are absolutely valid, in every sense of the term.
I don't know if you've read through the Yogic Christianity thread I started yet, but I gave a bit of the history of the gnostic gospels, there.
Basically, there was a conservative movement in early Christianity, which felt a very vested interest in making sure that any enlightenment-oriented teachings of/by Jesus and/or his disciples .... did not make it into their single "authorized book" (aka the Bible) ... which culminated with the Council of Nicea, where the 27 current books of the New Testament were selected and voted into the canon.
There have literally been *centuries* of propaganda handed down that the gnostic gospels are not valid or credible or "of God", or whatever ..... which has *zero* basis in any kind of credibility, again, on any level, as I'll explain:
1. Historical
All historians, including Christian historians, from conservative Christian institutions, acknowledge the historical accuracy and veracity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Library; there's too much factual detail to discount it. They do a pretty major dance to highlight why they feel these gospels are not "doctrinally valid", or whatever ... but no one at a professional/academic level denies that they're authentic.
2. Linguistic
"Ditto". The gnostic gospels are valid, linguistically ... and accepted as such, by academia ... all around the world.
3. Consistency/Volume
This is a bit of personal view here, but it feels reasonable: there's a thread of consistency through the mystical/yogic (experiential/non-dual) schools of the world's wisdom traditions .... including Gnostic Christianity ... Kabbalah ... Western Mysticism ... Hindu Tantra ... Buddhist Tantra ... and so on.
They all sound amazingly consistent with each other (with allowances or symbolism and language, of course) ... and teach the same thing, essentially.
*And* there are at least ten major gnostic gospels for every book of the New Testament ... so these (gnostic/mystic) teachings were by *far* the prevalent Christian teaching in the early church .... the exoteric/power-oriented factions just made a major power-play ... and they won, propagandically-speaking.
The *best* source I've seen for easy/thorough/solid/insightful clarity on these gospels is the Sophian Gnosticism forum ..... which I said I'd post a link to, and forgot .... and so ..."good segue".
http://www.sophian.org/forum/
Their forum sections for:
The Gospel of St. Thomas
The Gospel of St. Phillip
The Gospel of Truth
The Pistis Sophia (from which Ecclesia Pistis Sophia, Tau Malachi's church, takes its name)
The Secret Gospel of Mary (I love this one; utter wisdom from Jesus' partner/co-guru, and some say, spouse, Miriam {Mary Magdalene}).
And ... if you read interesting things there, and have any questions ... Tau Malachi directly answers questions there, all the time (he's very accessible) ... and I don't know of a more authoritative living source, regarding the gnostic gospels, and their deepest meanings, than Tau Malachi).
I've gotta run for now; I hope this is helpful.
Enjoy!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2009 : 10:55:03 PM
|
Hi Christi :)
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....page=2#40898
As I understand it the omniscient aspect of enlightenmnet is related to the omnipresent aspect because, after all, if we are everywhere, then we will know, and be, everything.
Yes. Precisely. All at the same time. If you could do that why would you desire or want anything? You already have everything, every experience imaginable, for all time and space. And your little self would seem so insignificant! To me, this is a proper definition.
quote:
The omnipotent aspect of the enlightenmnet process, I believe, comes through fully surrendering to, and becoming a channel of divine love. This is because ultimately, divine love is the power and force of the principle of creation in the universe and as we surrender more and more to That, we become increasingly, a channel of that divine power.
Christi
Yes. Again, I agree wholeheartedly. Hence, stand aside and let God perform the miracles through your open gateway of the heart.
That link is certainly an interesting discussion.
Just for another perspective, here is a paragraph about the illusory body, which kind of falls into my definition of enlightenment/self-realization/really making it:
This is from "Clear Light Of Bliss" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso:
quote:
As for the benefits of attaining the illusory body, these are also enumerated in Guhyasamaja Tantra as well as in the Five Stages of Completion Stage and Condensed Deeds. In these texts, it is said that the illusory body is adorned with the thirty-two major signs and the eighty minor indications; is an object of offering for all humans and gods; can obtain wealth and possessions effortlessly; is free from poverty, sickness, old age, death, rebirth, and all the sufferings of samsara; and can manifest various forms to benefit others. The greatest benefit is that a person who has attained the illusory body will definately attain Buddhahood within that same life.
I believe unity consciousness or Oneness is not enlightenment, it is just a small aspect of it all. It is definately a step in the right direction, however, it does not produce any of the more esoteric trappings of truly realized beings as described and written about throughout the ages in many spiritual and Buddhist texts. Even Buddha performed miracles and he even describes how to attain those powers in the Pali (like Patanjali does). Again, you shouldn't seek the powers, but then once you do wake up and realize you are God living in a cartoon world, as long as you don't wake up everyone else because that would truly mean the end of the world, why not have some fun?
I guess I have a predisposition to miracles because, I took part in one on the night after which I met Jesus. I didn't believe it at the time, but now I'm starting to think perhaps it was true.
I wrote this with the intention of posting it in response to a post by Ananda (which I ended up not posting due to unforseen circumstances):
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ananda:
we have a story here in Lebanon about a famous and very beautiful and loving Christian Saint who is still doing miracles after he's been long past gone (his name is Saint Charbel); anyways the story goes that Saint Charbel asked God at one point to let him go out from his hermitage and help others and God's reply to him was pray all is asked of you is to pray this is the best way you can help with for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this Ananda! Reading about Saint Charbel and his miracles reminded me of when I took part in a miracle. It was after the time when I met Jesus (couldn't move for 40 minutes on the church bench and Jesus told me that I was saved. I've written about it in other posts).
Afterwards, the group of us went to downtown Edmonton ( I was being initiated into what Christians do on Wednesday nights).
We entered this small white house, which was a meet-up house and walked into the living room. On my way into the house from the back porch, there was a guy sitting on the freezer. I had said "Hi" to him but he did not acknowledge me. I barely noticed, but I did notice that.
In the living room, there was a chair in the center. My friend told me that we were going to perform a healing. The guy who was sitting on the freezer on the back porch was led into the room. He sat on the chair. He appeared to be in rough shape.
Then, this other woman introduced him as "Fred" and said that he was deaf and dumb. It had been 6 years since he could not hear or speak. Apparently he had lost his hearing and ability to speak in an industrial accident.
Everyone starting praying for Fred and put their hands on him. I felt compelled to do the same, peer pressure, so I did too. Well, after about 20 minutes, all of a sudden Fred starts smiling, someone calls out Fred's name and he turned to look at them!
Then Fred starting talking! He told us his life's story up to that day, how he had lost his job, couldn't find work, was homeless etc.. Everyone was overjoyed that Fred could hear and speak. He was healed. They went crazy and danced around. Fred was ecstatic.. he cried a lot. There was lot of "Praise Jesus" and laughter and joy going around.
A part of me was very impressed, but another part of me did not believe it. I still think the whole night was staged just to try to influence me, but then again perhaps lately I'm starting to believe it.
You know, it's very funny but I've never thought of myself as being religious. The only real fun that I had from my Catholic upbringing as a child was when I used to bounce my legs while sitting on those hard wooden benches at church. Then, after church, I'd run home through the church grounds with a kind of skipping motion that felt kind of like I was flying. I swear, I used to be able to just glide along the ground for 10 or more feet before having to take another step. Perhaps that is why I like Kunlun so much.. ?
:)
TI
|
Edited by - Tibetan_Ice on Nov 28 2009 12:27:05 AM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2009 : 10:55:15 PM
|
| I really wish Kirtanman would sum it up in few words. |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 12:12:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
...
but the Nag Hammadi manuscripts are absolutely valid, in every sense of the term.
Hi Kirtanman :)
Thank you so much for this. I appreciate it.
Here is a quote from that book:
quote:
Saying 50
Jesus said, "If some say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light,
where the light came into being by itself,
established itself,
and appeared in an image of light'
"If they say to you, 'Are you the light?', say,
'We are its children,
and we are the chosen of the living Father,'
"If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' tell them,
'It is motion and rest.'"
I do have one concern with one of your statements from a different post, this one, where you say:
quote:
Maybe miraculous siddhis are real .... there are so many stories, after all (that some would say "they must be real", and some, such as myself, have said "but it's interesting that hardly anyone has *experienced* them" -- though now, there's not even that evaluation; they're just not interesting, nothing not-now, is, really)
Ok, you're causing me to big out my big gun now. I didn't want to bring it out because I'm concerned that everyone would think I was lulu for sure. They probably do by now anyway, so no loss there.. :) But here goes...
This happened about a year ago. I used to coordinate my work breaks with a smoking buddy of mine at work. She was 19 yrs old and we would spend our breaks smoking out by the road. We enjoyed each other's company and I grew to know her quite well. She would talk about anything and everything, including the fact that she had had cancer a few years previous. She was terrified that the cancer would return. She had to go for tests every year and, at that time, had gone and was waiting for results.
One day, we went for a smoke break and she was devastated. She couldn't stop welling up with big tears. She was a real mess. Turned out she had gotten her results back from the test and it wasn't good. The cancer had returned and she was scheduled for aggressive treatments.
That night, I went home and prayed to Jesus for her. I prayed for over an hour.
The next day, I went to work, and we went for a break again. When I saw her, she behaved absolutely normally, like there was nothing wrong. There was no sign of stress or any distraught emotion. I asked her about the cancer test and she said that the results were negative! Like the previous day hadn't happened!
I was amazed, dumbfounded, perplexed, you name it!
It was like Jesus had gone back and changed the past. I contemplated the whole thing. My mind was reeling. The whole experience did have the same kind of flavour as being in a dream. It felt the same as when I went up to heaven a few times during deeply mystic meditations. I could see 'yesterday' as a whirling cloud that looked like a spiral being taken away. It had been taken away and replaced with another version of reality. That's what Jesus can do!
This experience is all just too hard for me to believe, but I know I should believe it. It felt like the previous day had been a dream, exactly how life had felt when I was up in heaven. Deep silence, peace, joy, love, realization of eternal truth and wisdom and a feeling like life was but a dream.
I know this is a miracle and I've never told anybody else about it. It is very hard to tell someone about a miracle when there is the chance that they will not believe you. Unit 23 (the psych ward) isn't so far away from where I work.. :)
So, either I'm crazy, or miracles do happen and it's all true. Now ask me again why I'm very interested in siddhis and miracles..
:)
TI
|
|
|
|
Shanti
USA
4854 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 10:24:43 AM
|
Hi TI,
Yes miracles do happen. Life itself is a miracle. Waking up every morning and reaching work and getting home safe is a miracle. A complex child being formed from the union of two little cells is a miracle. A plant sprouting from a seed and becoming a huge tree is a miracle.
But yes, you are talking about things that happen that are not within the definition of what the mind defines as ordinary.
(If someone from a remote village in Africa ever came to NY city, they would definitely think walking on the streets of NY city and making it home alive is a miracle.  )
It is the power of prayer TI. Yogani had once told me, "We will find what we are seeking. If we seek enlightenment (abiding inner silence), we will find it. If we seek aliens, siddhis, God, we will find them (or they will find us). It is the pro-con siddhis discussion happening in different shades". When we believe in Jesus we can make Jesus manifest, if we believe in life outside of the forms we know, we can make aliens manifest, when we believe in miracles (siddhis) we can make miracles manifest. But this believing is at a level beyond the mind. That is why the mind labels them as miracles, because it cannot comprehend how this can happen.
Almost everyone can (and have at some point in their lives, even if they don't realize it) make things manifest. But it is a hit or miss in most cases. Some figure out a way to go beyond the mind and ask, and can have their prayers answered most times... some get a glimpse of it and make it happen a few times but don't really know how they did it (when I was a kid I remember feeling defeated and scared and crying and praying to god for something and it happened... I was so shocked.. so I thought maybe the trick was to cry and beg to god... and tried it many times after that, but it never worked.. reason, I was expecting an outcome like that one time, I did not realize the trick was in letting go).
A person who is enlightened, one who has gone beyond the clutches of the mind, can actually make anything they really want, manifest. And it is not hit or miss any more. It depends on the interest of the person. Some people who are enlightened become silent and go to some remote place and meditate, some become teachers, some healers, some of them sing songs, some become poets and artists, some of them are into service. They then have miracles manifest in and around them, but they will not claim it... only the mind can claim something.. only the mind can define an I and a me and mine... the enlightened would say... "it wasn't me, I am not doing anything, things just happen".
The reason, siddhis are a hindrance before enlightenment is because they are so amazing, that the mind wants to hold onto it. Anything that will keep the mind in place will take away from enlightenment. After enlightenment, the interest in siddhis are not there. Only the mind can be dazzled by miracles. When you are beyond the mind everything is a miracle (even the ordinary) or nothing is a miracle.
Our limited minds see these happenings as miracles and are in awe of it. But when an enlightened soul manifests these, they are never impressed by it, because they know it is not "they" (this body mind) who are making things happen. If these are manifested by unenlightened souls though, they will be so impressed by this, s/he will then focus more energy into getting better at this siddhi and hence moving further away from our true nature.. our oneness with everything.
You have a blessing of being able to communicate with Jesus. This blessing is beyond your mind. You are surprised when you make things manifest (the lady above got healed)... why? You have the blessing of being one with Jesus. Accept this and continue on your path. Drop the mind layers that wants to figure out how this was possible or how it can make these sidhhis more reproducible. Just find your true nature and the rest of the miracles will just flow.
You truly are blessed TI . Let Jesus flow through you and not try to control how Jesus flows through you.
You are such a loving soul.
Thank you. _/\__/\_ |
|
|
|
WayneWirs
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 11:07:07 AM
|
(I know I often come across as direct, I don't mean to insult anyone's ego, but I'm not here to stroke their egos either. My "flavor" is to cut through the noise and highlight the crux of the problem - Wayne)
Ironically, on my blog, I often talk of the "Light." I call it the Divine Within, the Life Force, the Radiant Light, the Divine Flame. These terms help the readers grasp the FEEL of the "no-self" experience--what it FEELS like to live without a self. This is the artist in me, to EVOKE a feeling.
The Light, the Divine Within, is not what I mean by a miracle.
What I mean by a miracle is "I helped a smoker cure her cancer by praying." "I walked on water." "I can teleport into someone's house and answer any question they might have." "I helped heal a deaf and dumb man." "My personal story is special and it is far greater than you mere mortals' stories and my personal story is so much more awesome than yours."
Because, PRIOR TO DROPPING YOUR STORY, if you either performed the miracle, participated in it, or WANT to be able to perform miracles, all you are doing is ADDING to your STORY.
You are STRENGTHENING the EXACT THING that is BLOCKING you from waking up.
You are HINDERING your awakening.
So here is my prediction and I am completely serious here: Spend the next twenty years (or however long you decide), focusing on WANTING to perform miracles and after those twenty years are up (mark it in your calendar), come back to this entry and see if my prediction is correct. My prediction is: You won't have woken up yet.
All the great teachings say the same thing. You wake up by FEELING who you truly are (ie: Out-flowing Love, Christ consciousness, the Radiant Light) and then DROPPING everything that is BLOCKING that FEELING.
Understanding is important, but FEELING it (practice, practice, practice) is what is so often overlooked these days.
There are hundreds of teachings that tell you how (and provide practices) to drop the personal story (that which is blocking your "Light"), but in essence, they are all working toward the same goal: dropping the personal story.
Peace to each of you. I hope this helps.
PS: TI, I know it sounds like I'm jumping on you (or your personal story), and I am, but it is because, from some of your remarks, you sound like you are close to awakening--but your attachment to the miraculous is actually what is blocking you from waking up (for all the reasons stated above). The miraculous happens because there is LESS of you standing in the way of the Divine, but if you hang onto those miracles, then you create MORE of you (the story), and thus BLOCK the Divine from flowing through. Just let it flow, bud. Let the story go, surrender, and let the Light flow through. |
Edited by - WayneWirs on Nov 28 2009 11:28:29 AM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 12:25:12 PM
|
| One can take the five poisons as the path, boil five down to three or three down to one. The one poison is a self. The radiant clear light is obscured by that. There are no two thoughts. |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 2:17:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I really wish Kirtanman would sum it up in few words.
Hi Adamantclearlight,
Welcome to the AYP Forum!
Which part would you like me to sum up?
My own experiencing? What I'm saying about the nature of enlightenment?
Or you'd just like to see shorter posts?
Any answer is fine ... I'm just not sure if you're actually asking for a summary ... or simply commenting that you feel my posts are too long.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 4:01:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
I really wish Kirtanman would sum it up in few words.
Ah, got it ... you're saying miracles *are* real!!
And: Hey, Konchok (sorry, I didn't recognize you in non-Tibetan garb ... ) ... I like your new site ... good, clear vibe to it.
And ... I'll "humbly accept your challenge" (to sum it up in a few words).
I started this thread because I felt some AYPers might enjoy Wayne Wirs' site.
Wayne mentioned sharing his enlightenment experiences, so others would know that enlightenment is possible.
I added my "voice of encouragment" to his.
"Discussion ensued".
"Fast-forward" to now-ish:
What I am kinda/sorta calling enlightenment, is simply a major "shift" in experiencing that began a few weeks back.
The shift was essentially from knowing that I am awareness experiencing humanity -- to being awareness, experiencing humanity.
Post-shift, there's an experiencing harmony with life ... being the wetness of the ocean, whether the perspective-now is "ocean" or "wave" - with however the ocean is "waving", this moment, being obviously perfect-as-it-is.
The primary quality of the shift, in experiencing, is one of effortlessness, and it is experienced as peaceful fulfillment.
TI has been seeking and offering clarification on the nature of miracles and siddhis, samadhi and enlightenment, with others commenting.
Christi has been offering clarification on the importance of not expressing enlightenment as a definable state, or an actual experience, or connecting it in any way with one's own experience, with others commenting.
That's about it .... and hey, for me .... this *is* a few words!
And Konchok/Adamant Clear Light .... it seems you might have a lot to offer here, if you care to comment (no worries if not).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 28 2009 4:02:05 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 4:11:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
One can take the five poisons as the path, boil five down to three or three down to one. The one poison is a self. The radiant clear light is obscured by that. There are no two thoughts.
"Yep."
Five down to three .... five senses down to mind, ego and intellect .... or subject, object, means of knowing (perception), yes?
Three down to one ... subject, object and means-of-knowing (me, the world, perceiving) ... down to unitive awareness, yes?
Yet, for most ... unitive awareness involves an "I" that is aware, yes?
(The "yes?"es are per the fact I'm not 100% sure I understand what the five-to-three, three-to-one, etc. refer to ... but I'm fairly confident as to my guesses).
Ultimately the One can either be "all self" or "no self" .. and all non-dual/tantric (most, if not all, tantric systems are non-dual; all the ones I know of, are ... i.e. Kashmir Shaivism) systems posit this non-duality, with either view (all self, or no self).
All of them agree, thought, that there is just One .. or the No-Thing, manifesting as One ..... the wetness of the one ocean, waving now.
Recently, in experiencing here .... this is what shifted ... from identity being with the all-awareness .... to simply .... being; awareness and manifestation as the one rising-falling-still-wholeness now.
The closest way I know to describe it is: imagine what it feels like to *be* the ocean ... and/or to be a wave arising from the ocean; utter harmony and is-ness, regardless of exact configuration, now .... with "exact configuration" (of waves, of waving, of the depths) not being of concern.
The wetness of the ocean is permanent; the waving continues now .... and now ... and now.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 4:38:25 PM
|
Hi TI,
Glad you're enjoying the gnostic gospels; the quote you gave is from the Pistis Sophia {?} (I don't recall for sure; I love it, though ... I've read it before). The teachings of Jesus go a lot deeper, and are a lot more in harmony with the enlightenment teachings of all widsom traditions, than many realize.
quote:
I do have one concern with one of your statements from a different post, this one, where you say:
quote:
Maybe miraculous siddhis are real .... there are so many stories, after all (that some would say "they must be real", and some, such as myself, have said "but it's interesting that hardly anyone has *experienced* them" -- though now, there's not even that evaluation; they're just not interesting, nothing not-now, is, really)
I know this is a miracle and I've never told anybody else about it. It is very hard to tell someone about a miracle when there is the chance that they will not believe you. Unit 23 (the psych ward) isn't so far away from where I work.. :)
So, either I'm crazy, or miracles do happen and it's all true. Now ask me again why I'm very interested in siddhis and miracles..
:)
TI
As Wayne said so simply:
Enlightenment and miracles/siddhis simply have nothing to do with one another.
I agree with everything he has said on the matter, as well as with what Shanti has said.
I never said that I haven't experienced things that some might considered miraculous (answers to prayer/effects of samyama that can't be explained "rationally", etc.).
I was solely referring to the connection you seemed to be making with siddhis (miraculous powers described in the Yoga Sutras, and elsewhere) and enlightenment, along with the fact that you have read "many stories" about Buddhist masters who have created/attained a "rainbow body", leaving behind only hair and fingernails.
One side-effect of (what Wayne and I, at least, are calling) "enlightenment" is disengagement from belief ... all belief.
If someone asks me what I believe now, I will answer, as Adyashanti did:
"I don't."
However, like you, I have some memories of some "non-ordinary" situations ... which, again, simply have nothing to do with enlightenment.
Any healing (<- wholeness) power comes from experiencing wholeness as self; by definition, to comprehend any system, one must both include and transcend it. Trying to understand miracles and siddhis with consciousness still identified with form, is akin to trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps: an exercise in frustration, and preparation for eventual cynicism.
It's important (for us all) to be rigorous (observant, aware) so as not to be pulled around by conditioned concepts.
Have I seen instances of non-ordinary healing, or seemingly "impossible" coincidences (which therefore weren't coincidences)? Yes, quite a few times. I don't believe such things are possible; I know, I've experienced them, as have you (TI).
However, does this mean that I have seen, or know anyone who has seen, a master dissolve their physical body, and arise in a "rainbow body", leaving behind their hair and fingernails? No, it does not.
Does this mean than I am absolutely sure that Jesus was an historical person, or that he physically walked on water? No, it does not.
Do I love some of the teachings attributed to Jesus? Yes, I absolutely do.
Does it matter to me if Jesus was historical, alive in a mortal body, at one time? No, it does not. My sense of the applicable aspect of Jesus/Christ is as Christ Consciousness, because Christ Consciousness is one term, among many, for an aspect of consciousness now.
As many/most of you know, I enjoy Kashmir Shaivism, which, per its name ... has a lot to do with Shiva, and sacred writings which are said to have come from Shiva. Some Shaivites speak of Shiva as historical and/or physical, whereas Kashmir Shaivites know that Shiva is a term for original, unborn awareness ... just as Gnostic Christians know the same of Jesus/Christ.
Nothing happens outside consciousness, truly; there is nothing outside consciousness, truly.
Anything that can be thought of can be manifest ... but again, very important:
Concern with manifesting form (siddhis, miracles, etc.) while still identified with form ... is a recipe for remaining identified with form ... hence Wayne's prediction ("still not awakened after twenty years if miracles are the focus").
Awaken ("Enlighten Your Self" ) first ... and you'll know what you need to know exactly when you need to know it ... and ... have available to you any and all power, exactly as you need to have it, and exactly when.
That's how it works.
Every healing/miracle attributed to Jesus either teaches and important principle through symbolism, and/or was utterly selfless ... and his intent is documented as "wishing to remain anonymous" ... but like disciples everywhere, his disciples are said to have broadcast the miracles far and wide.
And so, let your sense of separate self dissolve .... into enlightenment ... and, becoming one with the wholeness you've always actually been, know that all is available to you as needed ... because all is an inherent aspect of this that you actually are now; that we each and all actually are now; One.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 4:56:54 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Hi Christi,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kirtanman
As Wayne pointed out, a *huge* part of this issues stems from the mythologizing of enlightenment (over the centuries, and by many modern spiritual teachers, as well) ... people feel like someone they know/know of, can't "be enlightened", because:
A. "Enlightenment isn't like that!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
I think this is the whole issue here really. The truth is, we can't actually know can we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know what?
If there's the experience of enlightenment, or not?
I can see that my last post was potentially confusing so I will try to explain better using a few more words (but hopefully not too many  ).
You seemed to be saying in the first place that when you offer people the opportunity to come and enjoy enlightenment with you, you get a range of responses, which you find confusing. I was trying to explain from my own perspective why I thought you might be getting some of those responses.
Firstly (on a slight side note), the conversation we had at the beginning of this thread was largely about teaching method. I was saying basically: "Be careful, presenting pure advaita (or pretty pure advaita) as it can potentially be confusing and lead people astray on the spiritual path". And I was also saying that if you are offering an invitation, rather than teaching anything, and that the invitation could still potentially lead people astray, then the duties and responsibilities that should normally apply in teaching should still apply to the invitation.
I was saying a couple of other things as well, which were basically about making sure that you avoid some of those traps yourself, especially the trap of thinking that you have arrived anywhere (completed the journey).
With the discussion that you have been having in this thread with TI, I basically see it as going something like this:
Kirtanman: "Here is Wayne Wirs' website, he is obviously an authentic enlightened guy, and it's great to see him on top of the mountain".
TI: "How do you know he's enlightened, I thought that only enlightened people can recognise another enlightened person?"
Kirtanman: "That's right. I'm enlightened, so I can tell that Wayne Wirs is enlightened."
TI: "So are you omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, and can you display all the siddhis that go along with that state of being?"
Kirtanman: "Nope, none of the above".
TI: But many teachers say that someone who is enlightened experiences omniscience, omnipresence and is omnipotent, and can display all the siddhis that go along with that if they choose to?"
Kirtanman: "Well, all those teachers got it wrong, and I know that because I'm enlightened, and I don't experience any of those things and can't perform any of those siddhis, and basically have no interest to."
So, as I see it, you are not only saying: "Hey everyone, enlightenment is great, why not enjoy it too!” but are also saying: "Enlightenment is this (ABC) and anyone who says it is anything else (including thousands of spiritual teachers over several thousand years), is basically deluded, and is suffering from belief in the myths about enlightenment.
From where I'm sitting, I would say there is no way you can know that to be true. You may believe it, but belief is different from knowledge. You may have been told it is true, or read it in a book, but that doesn’t make it true. So basically that idea (the idea that enlightenment is only what you -Kirtanman- are experiencing and nothing else) is an idea formation in your mind. When there is attachment to an idea form then that becomes a fixed view.
The other side of that fixed view is: “Enlightenment is accompanied by omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, and all the siddhis that accompany those qualities”. This is also something that cannot be known, except by a person who has all those qualities (or at least the omniscience one), so until then it is also a thought formation in the mind, which, if attached to, becomes a fixed view. And when two opposite fixed views are being held onto, discussion can go around in circles and dialectics are resorted to in order to end the dispute, as TI mentioned above.
Issues over opposing fixed views often end either two ways, in confusion (in the form of: “but I can’t understand why nobody understands what I’m saying?”), or in frustration (in the form of: “if you don’t agree with me you can... *$$*”).
So even when it appears that the contractual ego is in abeyance, and we are living in a continual state of bliss and peace, there can still be a very subtle movement of contracted ego, which can try to lay claim to the experience. This can begin in the form of “I’m enlightened, I made it, this is it”, and can spread very subtly to include “If this is it, then anyone who says enlightenment is anything other than this, must be wrong”. And the mind is back in control, only this time it is far more dangerous, because there is the idea that there is no ego, and so therefore no views to attach to, and therefore nothing to be on guard against. If someone else has a problem, it must be their problem, because they still have an ego, right?
The mind can say: “If I’m free, then I am blameless, and everything I do is right”. It is a slippery slope, because it absolves the enlightened from responsibility, and when enlightenment is present, one has to be more responsible, because others will put their faith and trust in you whether you want it or not.
I remember Yogani was once talking about Adyashanti and the dangers involved in teaching and he said this:
"Yes, I would agree that Adyashanti is at risk, just as all adored teachers have been. All it takes is a few wayward desires on the part of the teacher (who doesn't have them?) and it can run astray in a hurry."
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....page=2#18815
At the time I couldn’t understand it. If Adyashanti is enlightened, and enlightenment is, by definition, about being beyond both attachment and desire, then how could Adyashanti have a wayward desire? But in truth, desire doesn’t fall away with enlightenment, and neither does the potential of attachment of any kind. The history of the world is full of examples of spiritual teachers who have fallen prey to the subtle ego masquerading as enlightened mind and leading them astray.
This is why I was warning you of not falling prey to the illusion of thinking that you have arrived (ever). It can go like this: “I’m enlightened… I am now beyond egoic desire and false identification with limited mind. So everything I say must be true, and everything I do must be pure…”. I’ll leave you to imagine how the rest of the story could go.
quote:
I'm not sure what your experiencing is, with respect to enlightenment ... you haven't said ... and I respect that ...
I know what peace means, and what bliss means, and I know what it means to cry because of the sheer beauty of the freedom of the nature of our true Self. But I am not omnipresent, or omnipotent, or omniscient.
Do I believe that these three things are a part of the process of enlightenment? All I can say is that Yogani has talked about omnipresence with me (which I quoted above), and about the practices, which lead to its development. And I mentioned above how I can see the way in which omnipresence is directly related to omniscience (if you can be anywhere, then you can know anything).
Now everything that Yogani has said to me in the past, which I have been able to verify through my own experience, has turned out to be true. Everything, without exception (and I’m sure you would say the same). So do I think he is telling the truth this time? Well, there is no way that my mind could comprehend it, and if I cannot comprehend something, how could I judge it to be true or false? But, as you, I have already experienced the freedom, peace, joy and love which is beyond the mind, so the simple answer really is, yes, I believe him.
I also understand what you and Wayne are saying, that if someone believes that they cannot be free until they are able to manifest half a dozen siddhis, walk on water and raise the dead, then they could simply be delaying their own liberation. That is true as well. But the flip side of that is (per the quote by Yogani above) that denying siddhis, and the other aspects of our divine potential, could also limit the process of the spiritual transformation of humanity.
Christi
|
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 5:30:36 PM
|
| Recognizing the enlightened mind for oneself can happen in an instant. Practice that simplicity. |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 9:41:06 PM
|
Hi Christi,
Thanks for this; helpful as always.
And hey ... your "overview" of my dialog with TI is similar to my "overview" of your dialog with me in the Swami Lakshmanjoo thread ... I'm pretty sure that neither of us see our own commentary in the way it's presented back to us ... but for me, at least, it's still very useful as a "snapshot" of how others (specifically you; with all genuine respect, you do seem to be the only one here with your specific set of concerns) ... may perceive my statements, and which perceptions are not in sync with my lengthy and repeated emphases in other parts of this same thread.
I do feel that context is very important .... "going both ways", if you will:
In terms of what I'm saying, it may be helpful for me to clarify what I've said, if it appears to be out of sync with the consistency of the "lengthy and repeated" emphasis portions of my posts.
For others, such as yourself, maybe consider the likely context of given phrasing of mine, and what it's extremely likely that I actually meant, considering my overall comments ... again, with focus on the repeated and lengthy portions; as much as those portions may not be anyone's favorite parts ... both the repetition and emphasis are given to attempt to highlight what I'm actually saying ... which has seemed necessary, to this point.
I say "to this point", because, from my perspective at least, you're addressing items that have been "asked and answered" (a phrase from American courtroom dramas, and possibly actual courtrooms ... ), at least once, very thoroughly .... and more likely, on multiple occasions, in this thread.
And so, I can only conclude (please correct me, if my conclusion isn't accurate) ... that you solely wish to make clear that you won't accept/believe what I have to say, no matter how many times I say it, or how many hopefully-more-clear ways.
That's perfectly fine, of course ... I'm just not really seeing the value in going around "yet again" ... but at the same time, I genuinely don't mind.
I would ask, though, that maybe you simply outline your core issue, with my comments.
I'm truly not clear if you don't understand what I'm saying, or if you understand but don't agree.
Either way is perfectly fine ... it's just that if it's the former, I'll do my best to clarify.
If it's the latter .... probably best to simply "agree to disagree", and move on, I'd say.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kirtanman
As Wayne pointed out, a *huge* part of this issues stems from the mythologizing of enlightenment (over the centuries, and by many modern spiritual teachers, as well) ... people feel like someone they know/know of, can't "be enlightened", because:
A. "Enlightenment isn't like that!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
I think this is the whole issue here really. The truth is, we can't actually know can we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know what?
If there's the experience of enlightenment, or not?
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
You seemed to be saying in the first place that when you offer people the opportunity to come and enjoy enlightenment with you, you get a range of responses, which you find confusing. I was trying to explain from my own perspective why I thought you might be getting some of those responses.
Okay.
What I was saying was very simple, really ..... same thing Wayne said:
Enlightenment (or other-term-as-preferred) is real; if you've had any doubt about that, we're saying you can experience it, whatever you want to call it.
That's it.
There wasn't really a "range of responses", so much as "Christi and TI taking exception, along with TI asking some questions" regarding Kirtanman using the term "enlightenment" with respect to his own experiencing.
That's fine; opinions vary, as do definitions.
After all the dialog, and all the repeated and pertinent clarifications:
*Yes, I agree, there's no "I" in enlightenment.
*Yes, I agree, there's no "fixed position" for (what some call) enlightenment; it's a shift in sense of self .. or, more accurately a shift from fixed sense of self to no fixed sense of self.
*Yes, I agree, relative development/expansion occurs after enlightenment; the "permanent" aspect is a shift from identification with a "story of me" to no such identification, in experience.
*Yes, I agree, not everyone calls this enlightenment; I'm simply not sure of a better term to use; not using any term at all doesn't necessarily seems like a good solution, either.
*Some people and traditions do call what Wayne and I are experiencing "enlightenment", more or less; in fact, most other definitions I know -- including Yogani's, seem to be virtually identical, except for slightly different phrasing.
*Christi feels that saying "enlightenment is real" is equivalent to teaching about enlightenment and certain warnings issued, and/or "care taken" when making such a statement, so as not to hinder or harm other yogic practitioners.
*Kirtanman respectfully disagrees with Christi on this point.
*TI feels that enlightenment may involve siddhis, though is flexible on this point.
*Wayne & Kirtanman both state that miracles and enlightenment are not directly connected.
*TI is concerned that Kirtanman may not accept the veracity of occurrences that could be called miraculous.
Have you stopped to consider what enlightenment *really* is, Christi?
Enlightenment is a word.
You don't like my use of the word enlightenment, in describing my recent shift/experiences, or in telling others that enlightenment is possible.
"So noted."
I don't know that anything else is really applicable to do or say about that ... though am genuinely open to suggestions.
I really don't think that you want this to be about "Christi's view", any more than I would want it be about "Kirtanman's view" ... correct?
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Firstly (on a slight side note), the conversation we had at the beginning of this thread was largely about teaching method.
I was saying basically: "Be careful, presenting pure advaita (or pretty pure advaita) as it can potentially be confusing and lead people astray on the spiritual path". And I was also saying that if you are offering an invitation, rather than teaching anything, and that the invitation could still potentially lead people astray, then the duties and responsibilities that should normally apply in teaching should still apply to the invitation.
Got it. I can officially/formally say, now, that I respectfully disagree.
I'm not teaching anything (in a formal sense of the term; informally, we all teach, with every post), and I share none of the concerns regarding potential harm, that you have.
Your concerns are repeatedly stated throughout this thread, so there's no chance they'll be missed ... and readers can go over your statements, and mine, and take away what they will.
quote:
I was saying a couple of other things as well, which were basically about making sure that you avoid some of those traps yourself, especially the trap of thinking that you have arrived anywhere (completed the journey).
Duly noted.
And, as responded before: there's no thinking in particular, no concept of completion, no concept of "ongoing development or not", other than in the evidence sense that everything is ongoing, and no statement of completion, other than the "dropping of the me story", and the recent experiential shift I've described ... which is a permanent cessation of belief in, and reaction to the me-story.
quote:
With the discussion that you have been having in this thread with TI, I basically see it as going something like this:
Kirtanman: "Here is Wayne Wirs' website, he is obviously an authentic enlightened guy, and it's great to see him on top of the mountain".
As previously clarified, repeatedly:
"Top of the mountain" was a figure of speech, of casual phrasing.
I thought this whole thread might be a "one or two post" kind of thing; I was just saying "here's an interesting web site" .... I do that a lot; I had no idea the m-word (mountain) or e-word (enlightenment) would be such an issue for you, or create so many ongoing questions from TI ... both aspects of which are perfectly fine, and have made for good dialog, I'd say.
quote:
TI: "How do you know he's enlightened, I thought that only enlightened people can recognise another enlightened person?"
Kirtanman: "That's right. I'm enlightened, so I can tell that Wayne Wirs is enlightened."
TI: "So are you omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, and can you display all the siddhis that go along with that state of being?"
Kirtanman: "Nope, none of the above".
TI: But many teachers say that someone who is enlightened experiences omniscience, omnipresence and is omnipotent, and can display all the siddhis that go along with that if they choose to?"
Kirtanman: "Well, all those teachers got it wrong, and I know that because I'm enlightened, and I don't experience any of those things and can't perform any of those siddhis, and basically have no interest to."
So, as I see it, you are not only saying: "Hey everyone, enlightenment is great, why not enjoy it too!” but are also saying: "Enlightenment is this (ABC) and anyone who says it is anything else (including thousands of spiritual teachers over several thousand years), is basically deluded, and is suffering from belief in the myths about enlightenment.
Not exactly; please allow me to clarify.
Enlightenment may be defined by different people in different ways; definition is like that; people are like that.
The experiencing of what Wayne and I (and Yogani, and Adyashanti, and Nisargadatta and on and on and on) are speaking of, here, is fundamental to consciousness/awareness.
It's the experiencing that everyone involved in a spiritual path is seeking, until they find ... when the whole seeking/finding dynamic dissolves into itself ... and there's just wholeness.
Part of the dynamic of expressing it, is that some people aren't going to like the expressing of it, for whatever reason.
That's fine ... it's not about being listened to, or believed; it's not about whether or not current experiencing by anyone, concerning enlightenment, or whatever the awareness of unbound living is termed, or how that matches up to previously given definitions ... by anyone.
Focus on this is focus on the finger pointing at the moon.
The wisdom of looking at the moon (where we are pointing with our experiencing/inviting) seems that it might reside in saying (to oneself):
"Hey, that sounds pretty nice; I'd like that, too!!"
Or
"Hey, that sounds like my experiencing; good for you!"
Or
"Hm; that doesn't sound quite right; ah, well; peace."
Just please note:
ALL of my comments, have been in response to questions and/or challenges and/or disagreement (meaning: it was never originally intended to announce enlightenment dramatically or at length, nor to go into any comparison regarding how "enlightenment here" might sync up (or not) with reports of enlightenment, theories of enlightenment and overviews of enlightenment from the world's wisdom traditions from throughout history, and all around the world.
And again, pretty much anyone who "dares speak of enlightenment" is questioned about it, and that's fine ... there's just probably no need to keep circling if you (Christi) disagree with either my stated experiencing, or what I seem to be saying (despite the repeated clarification).
Regarding Omniscience:
This is another "biggie".
Thinking mind holds a concept (whatever it may be, in the given thinking mind) about what Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence really mean.
Usually, it's some fantasy of god-like power (whatever that may be conceptually fantasized to be, in thinking mind).
The actually, in "experiencing here" (purely speaking of my/non-my experience, not anyone else's, etc. etc. etc.) ..... is this:
Original awareness is undefined; without content.
Being without content, there is no limitation; original awareness precedes limitation; all limitation and definition arise from it, display within it, subside back into, and are made of it.
Therefore, original awareness is all-knowing .... purely because there is *nothing to know* ... all-knowing is part of all being ...... which is simply the experiencing of-as original awareness ...... not anything mythical, magical, supernatural or fantastical.
Ditto Omnipresence: original awareness is without qualities, and is inherently everywhere, now; it's not a mysterious thing .... just actuality.
And ditto Omnipotence ... yes: All-Power .... power .... shakti .... is the pure formless potential of the infinite field of energy inherently available in-as original awareness; that's all it is; potential is all-powerful *because* it is potential.
Omniscience
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Shiva
Shakti
Shivashakti
Being
Awareness
Living
Sat
Chid
Ananda
It's very easy for the concept-called-me to presume that omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are about objective form ... when they're only, ever about the reality of the subjective-formless ... the Self we each and all actually are now ... whether we're consciously experiencing this, or not.
All those things can only be concepts in mind, now.
Which is a subset of this that we are, now.
quote:
From where I'm sitting, I would say there is no way you can know that to be true.
Exactly; from where you're sitting, that's true.
"Per above" ... I wasn't saying that omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience aren't actually aspects of enlightenment .... simply that siddhis, etc. at TI was outlining them, as a direct aspect of enlightenment, was not correct, in my experience.
TI and I discussed this, and cleared it up, as far as I know. I have no idea whether we agreed; that doesn't matter; we both clarified why we each feel experience the way that we do ... and are moving forward with new, mutually helpful dialog and information.
quote:
You may believe it, but belief is different from knowledge.
I actually don't believe anything.
Belief is conceptual; there's truly no interest in the conceptual, here -- other than as a potential tool, in certain very specific instances (maps and models of consciousness which may serve to help people *out* of unconsciousness more quickly ... which involves awareness, and understanding that all maps and models are the finger ..... and the one's experiencing alone is/can be, the moon).
quote:
You may have been told it is true, or read it in a book, but that doesn’t make it true. So basically that idea (the idea that enlightenment is only what you -Kirtanman- are experiencing and nothing else) is an idea formation in your mind.
I've done my best not to operate from conceptual belief for quite some time, having understood that illusion can only be kept in place by it.
Belief is the single most powerful enlightenment-prevention tool in existence.
(Very different, by the way from faith; "belief" is prejudicial attachment to concept; faith is/can be the openness which allows for opening to reality/wholeness.)
Ultimately, we're talking about definitions, here, Christi:
I'm saying that in my experiencing (more accurately: "experiencing here" -- no me-concept; that's a figure of speech), there's awareness of certain things (i.e. what is meant by omniscience, etc.; whether or not siddhis are part of enlightenment, etc.).
You're saying I can't know this, and that it must be an idea in mind, a concept.
I'm saying that this is not the case; I know, and it is not a conceptual belief or concept.
This isn't argumentative, simply re-statement of experiencing, as clearly as words can state it.
I also realize that in your view, my experiencing does not fit with your definition of "enlightenment" .... and that's fine as well.
quote:
When there is attachment to an idea form then that becomes a fixed view.
Yes; this is exactly the conceptual prejudice I describe above .... the very attachment that prevents enlightenment.
If there is one single approach/attachment to avoid, if enlightenment is the goal ... attachment to ideas is it.
In actuality, if all attachment to ideas is released -- enlightenment is the result.
quote:
The other side of that fixed view is: “Enlightenment is accompanied by omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence, and all the siddhis that accompany those qualities”.
Yet, as always .... at the levels of manifestation and form, there may well be more than two "sides" ... rather, multiple facets/interpretations, if you will.
One of these "alternate interpretations" (and in my case, experiencing .... meaning: the overview I gave of the "omni"s is one way of outlining experiencing here; any definition is secondary to the experiencing).
You (Christi) and/or others, may say "but omniscience, etc. aren't like that ... because I don't imagine they are like that." .... which is perfectly fine, of course.
Ultimately, if experiencing is primary ... and harmony with actuality is primary ... and clearest possible articulation, when articulation happens is prioritized ... any variance in definition and/or concept will likely sort itself out, naturally.
Interestingly, you repeatedly warn against fixed view, yet (please correct me, if this is not accurate, in your experiencing) .... yet you seem to be holding the fixed view that my experiencing cannot be called enlightenment, accurately .... based on other fixed views (concepts regarding what enlightenment means, concepts regarding what the parameters of enlightenment are, etc.)
And I genuinely don't mean this disparagingly, or as a push-back ... more in the sense of: you've suggested "taking a look at certain things" might be helpful .... and I'm suggesting the same, in your case, with respect to this dynamic (using concepts to determine the validity of my experiencing and/or definitions, in your conception).
While, at the same time, remaining open to the possibility that you may not be doing this; I'm just not seeing how you may not be doing this .... and I invite you to help me see, if possible (and/or notice that it's happening; whichever is true, of course).
quote:
This is also something that cannot be known, except by a person who has all those qualities (or at least the omniscience one)
Unless one is experiencing original, formless awareness in such a way, that what is *actually* meant by those terms is seen/experienced as different than most conceptual interpretations.
Even evidently, Christi ........ we're attempting to discuss formless awareness, and/or the experiencing of (once again "what I am calling") enlightenment ... with you continually referring back to form, concept and definition ... and your repeated assertions that any variance in those definitions isn't acceptable.
And my genuine apologies in advance if any of this sounds harsh; I'm sitting here happily smiling ..... and, at the same time .... feeling it's important, if we're going to continue this discussion ... to be a bit more rigorous with our clarity ... and I'm more than willing to do so, myself, as much as I can (discussing the formless using the form of words has been problematic for some time .... hence Lao Tzu's opening the Tao Te Ching with the line ... "The Tao which can be spoken of is not the Tao").
I would invite you to at least open to the possibility that maybe enlightenment is different than what you've conceived, to this point.
I'm not saying you should accept my view; I truly have no view; I've simply been attempting to articulate experience.
When you and TI both (effectively) said:
"That's not enlightenment."
and/or
"That's not the correct way to speak of enlightenment."
and/or
"That has to be an idea, that can't be experience."
and/or
"Enlightenment isn't as you say."
..... the most useful response, in general, would likely begin and end with:
"Okay."
For one, that's how I feel.
And for two, there's really nothing else to say, especially since, in your case, you seem very committed to feeling the way you feel about the items you're mentioning on an ongoing basis.
However, I do genuinely trust the flow of it all .... and this mutual conversation, among all of us, will hopefully serve as a helpful "snapshot", from which people can take what they will .... and, as I'm sure that we all inherently intend will, from any angle .... facilitate enlightenment for the reader.
quote:
so until then it is also a thought formation in the mind, which, if attached to, becomes a fixed view.
In opinion there, yes; in experiencing here, no ... as outlined above.
I understand and accept that you see it differently.
quote:
And when two opposite fixed views are being held onto, discussion can go around in circles and dialectics are resorted to in order to end the dispute, as TI mentioned above.
I thought those were extinct?
Seriously: I remember TI *mentioning* dialectics ... but I'm not so sure I actually *saw* any .... but that could well be because I don't exactly remember what dialetics, means ..... other than I think L. Ron Hubbard had something to do with it .... (*kidding* ....!! And .... going to look up Dialectics ......) ...
Okay .... the most general definition seems to be:
": any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict."
Though there's also:
": discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas
3 : the logic of fallacy
4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
5 usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an intellectual exchange of ideas
6 : the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements.
Source:Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
.... and I'm not really sure if TI and I did any of that, or not .... we can both sound kinda smart, but I, at least, am not so sure I'm *that* smart ......
quote:
Issues over opposing fixed views often end either two ways, in confusion (in the form of: “but I can’t understand why nobody understands what I’m saying?”), or in frustration (in the form of: “if you don’t agree with me you can... *$$*”).
Yes, I see this, too, and have experienced it, many times (both as "concept-holder", in the past, and when someone else didn't agree with, or like, what I was saying.)
In saying "people respond" .... or whatever I said, this was my sincere-attempt-to-be-polite way of not "singling out" you and TI .... though there was no reason to do this; the authors of every post being quite clear.
I'd have to look back and see what I said (as Adyashanti says: "Hell, *I* don't remember what I say ... I don't know why anyone else bothers!")
And, if I ever came across as seeming like I was in the latter "mode or mood" ... I wasn't.
TI was seeming a bit irritated ... and when I realized this, I apologized for the comment which seemed to have made him irritated ... stating honestly that I understood how it could have done so.
Apparently, to you at least .... my returning to statements of my experiencing, and/or exchange of information (specifically with TI) .... can appear to reflect some form of adherence to fixed views (there isn't any) or ... what? ... defensiveness? Upset? There isn't any of either of those, either.
I may have presumed that more people understand when I'm in humor-mode, as evidenced by "grinny-face" (I prefer it to clown-face) .... or sunglasses-face (as close to "tongue-in-cheek" as our current library of "smileys" offers) ... than actually do.
For instance:
When I said to TI "my information can beat up your information" ..... that was a *joke* .... I was joking about the futility of that approach for one, and "calling myself" on having the tendency (to "throw references" out, as a matter of long-standing habit, and which can be informationally useful, if readers will let it be ... but isn't always the best approach, I'm finding) ... but was *mostly* making the point that, especially these days, "supporting information" for any view can be found easily .... and even if there are "more instances" of one view ... that certainly doesn't make it right.
And so, the entire approach of "somebody said this" .... just isn't a great approach, where enlightenment is the goal, or the topic, or the experiencing being articulated.
I felt like I was pointing this out to TI in a light-hearted way .... not realizing that he was already somewhat irritated, headed for "really irritated" .... but again (TI, please comment if you feel otherwise) ... it seems we've both moved on from the "vibe" of those few posts, and it's all good, quite literally.
Directly put, though:
I literally can't recall the last time there was a sense of "I" who had anything to defend, let alone any view ... but it was prior to the shift (five-six weeks ago), at least .... or, the last time there was any feeling of upset, here (ditto).
I fully realize, thought: my words could seem that way, to some readers ....... because everyone processes "how the words seem" through their own conditioning .... that's the way words/processing of meaning/interpretation goes.
I'm just stating, in order to be clear, per what you've written Christi, how I actually feel/felt ... and that there has been no fixed view, or operartion from concept ... or mental or emotional reaction, here; solely articulation of experiencing, along with a bit of my "sense of things", based on that experiencing ... and full enjoyment of the process, every moment, and every word (<-- "good thing!!"
quote:
So even when it appears that the contractual ego is in abeyance, and we are living in a continual state of bliss and peace, there can still be a very subtle movement of contracted ego, which can try to lay claim to the experience.
Indeed; we've all seen this, and have read/heard teachings about how this works.
That's part of the "why" any reliance on concept, and enlightenment, are indeed mutually exclusive.
For instance, in saying that "omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence" are actually referring to the non-limitation of original awareness, I'm going by my experiencing, along with some detailed teachings concerning this view, as offered by the Pratyabhijna school of Kashmir Shaivism, specifically Abhinavagupta's commentaries on the Para-Trisika-Vivarana.
Does that mean my view that this set of teachings is correct, is the only interpretation?
Of course not.
All it means is:
*My experiencing is my experiencing; it's complete within itself.
*There are alternate views, from some qualified and respected teachers, which at least open the possibility of understanding the "omni" terms in a way that doesn't require superhuman powers.
quote:
This can begin in the form of “I’m enlightened, I made it, this is it”, and can spread very subtly to include “If this is it, then anyone who says enlightenment is anything other than this, must be wrong”.
Sure; that's a possibility for some who think they're enlightened, who are not ... and that description is one description of "not" ... rather obviously.
None of that is the experience, here.
I'm not saying you or anyone need to agree with me, on any point.
I'm also not saying that "siddhis" are not real .... simply that they are not connected with enlightenment, and that focus on siddhis, or miracles, or anything else in the realms of form, keeps enlightenment occluded as long as this focus remains ... and puts the seeker in the position of fight the flow of consciousness, rather than swimming with it.
Anything is potentially real, and *can* happen; that doesn't mean that it has happened, nor does it mean it has not happened .... all of that is conceptual, and so, "from here" ... not of interest.
ALL I'm saying about enlightenment, is that:
*In general, the cessation of the me-story is one definition people give regarding "enlightenment".
*It feels as enlightenment is described:
-simple yet full knowing that this freedom from concept and conceptual self is what is meant by "enlightenment", in most definitions and descriptions I know.
-A vast increase in peace, presence and sense of harmony with life, along with a vast decrease in thoughts, and an almost complete cessation (like 99%ish) of even momentary body-mind reactions ... which happen as long as the body-mind remains, as many sages, including Nisrgadatta have outlined - he said ... well "into enlightenment" ... that ego-reactions in the body-mind arise ... and they are immediately seen through and thus dissolved, and so, barely noticed (yet they do arise; they "go with the body-mind" as I've said before).
-There's no attachment, really, to calling it enlightenment .... yet, as the same time, I don't feel a sense that a small chorus of objections, primarily yours, indicates that this term should actually be discarded, either.
And, I hope I've cleared up the "there's no operating from thought or conceptual mind" here "issue" you've felt ... though if I haven't, I would guess there is nothing I can to in order to clear it up.
My expression of experiencing is as accurate as I know how to make it, using words, and there's no attachment to definitions ... mine or anyone else's.
That's as simply as I know how to put it (sentence above).
quote:
And the mind is back in control, only this time it is far more dangerous, because there is the idea that there is no ego, and so therefore no views to attach to, and therefore nothing to be on guard against. If someone else has a problem, it must be their problem, because they still have an ego, right?
Yes, if there's such a story, I agree with you that this would be "dangerous", in the sense that that concept-story would be occluding enlightenment, while simply in a different dream ... one that enlightenment was actual.
Yet ... the idea that "I can't relax; I must be on guard .... because there could still be an ego" ... is ... guess what? ... Yep .... *ego* (aka conceptual thinking) ... attempting to sneak in through the back door.
I realize that from where you sit ... there appears to be this "danger" with respect to me/my statements, based primarily (it seems) ... on your sense that my discounting of the "omni" words conflicts with your strongly held belief in a single interpretation of those words (that they can only mean that "further development after unity consciousness" means superhuman powers).
All I can tell you is: there is neither operation from ego nor conceptual view, here.
Words are limited, and may make it seem otherwise; this doesn't mean the statement above is not true.
To ego, I imagine this always sounds like a dangerous comment ("no ego here") ... whereas I just mean it definitionally: there's no experience of "I", and no sense of "right or wrong" views; purely articulation of experiencing, along with clarification, based on this experiencing (enlightenment ......) of "sense of some things here".
I would invite you to at least considering accepting that statement as true ... or, at least, the possibility that it might be true.
If you cannot or will not do so; no problem .... and on we go.
quote:
The mind can say: “If I’m free, then I am blameless, and everything I do is right”. It is a slippery slope, because it absolves the enlightened from responsibility, and when enlightenment is present, one has to be more responsible, because others will put their faith and trust in you whether you want it or not.
Yes, but as you may or may not have noticed .... just as with the experiencing of enlightenment itself, the responsibility can and does reside solely with the "enlightened" ... and not with anyone else's opinions about the enlightened (because otherwise, there can be sliding down the *other* side of the slippery-slope .... the faux-enlightened feeling as though "they see me this way; that's not good ... must adjust!" .... which is equally problematic).
Basically, prior to enlightenment, great care must be taken, regarding who is accepted as enlightened or not .... if that even comes up; it doesn't have to.
The *entire* path consists of dropping the story of the me ... which is usually brought about by awareness/inquiry, meditation, and quite often, complementary yoga/spiritual practices.
Accepting/rejecting others as enlightened may or may not be helpful to that process.
As Yogani says in every post:
"The guru is in you."
This is literally true.
There's no actual outer guru; the outer guru is a place-holder until it is seen that the unity of connectedness with all; identity with all, *is* reality ... that's what the outer guru exists to help the seeker see ..... that the guru and the seeker are non-different.
And so, an "outer guru" is not needed for all ... yet some benefit from having one, whereas others learn equally valuable lessons in that anti-enlightenment possibilities that gurus can offer, as well .... but ultimately ... the inner guru .... the pure intuitive awareness that is/in each/all, here ... is the "final arbiter" of how it all arises; this is simply consciously known ... or it isn't consciously known, yet.
quote:
I remember Yogani was once talking about Adyashanti and the dangers involved in teaching and he said this:
"Yes, I would agree that Adyashanti is at risk, just as all adored teachers have been. All it takes is a few wayward desires on the part of the teacher (who doesn't have them?) and it can run astray in a hurry."
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....page=2#18815
At the time I couldn’t understand it. If Adyashanti is enlightened, and enlightenment is, by definition, about being beyond both attachment and desire, then how could Adyashanti have a wayward desire? But in truth, desire doesn’t fall away with enlightenment, and neither does the potential of attachment of any kind. The history of the world is full of examples of spiritual teachers who have fallen prey to the subtle ego masquerading as enlightened mind and leading them astray.
True that ... though there then becomes the question of whether or not the enlightenment was actual, in the first place.
In the case of Adyashanti, he would have to both have the desire, and give in to it ........ the latter part being what Yogani was speaking about. I know that Adyashanti feels, and consistently demonstrates, that while untrue thoughts can arise, that they are seen through very, very quickly ... and that they arise less and less ..... and yet, if there's ever an increase, he will act accordingly, to dissolve any strengthening of reliance in untrue thought ... which basically ceases to be a problem, at a certain point .... and when it does ... it really does.
Yet, your points are well made; the operating aspect is *if* .... *if* untrue thoughts/belief in conceptual form .... returns for more than a moment.
As Adya also points out: after realization (experience of true nature, regardless of duration, as I'm using the term, here) ..... returning to identification with limited mind (as self) would be most unwise ... not to mention largely impossible, if the realization is authentic.
And so, "inquiry" at that point, ideally becomes:
How am I unenlightening myself in this moment?
(If unenlightenment arises for more than an instant.)
After what I'm calling enlightenment .... the sense of sand running out of the hourglass/effortless flow, with no trouble from limited mind .... this "post-realization" inquiry doesn't seem to be needed ... only because the flashes/reactions of limited mind do only last for an instant or two ... before they're seen through/dissolved in what feels like one motion.
And please understand:
There's no "I'm enlightened" sense and defense thereof; the benefits of enlightenment are far too great to ever go there; there's no non-prioritization of maintaining identification with awareness. Currently, it's effortless and naturally; if effort is ever required, effort is then immediately the top priority.
Enlightenment truly is the only important thing is life ... except enlightenment isn't a "thing" ... enlightenment *is* life .... having it more abundantly, and knowing it in reality; and from experiencing here .... preserving-sharing it is every bit as important as melting into it was, prior to the experiencing.
Enlightenment is defined in various ways .... and some define realization as initial experience of truth/true identity ... and enlightenment as the phase (for lack of a better word) when it becomes permanent/effortless/the default condition.
This is how I'm using the term.
Realization here was some years ago; a very major instance of it a bit over two years ago, with several returns to that condition, and phasing back out of it, since then.
When it (ego/dream/illusion) all *finally* falls away, it's known.
Until such time, vigilance is only wise.
After such time, vigilance is a hindrance, because it reintroduces form as a means to evaluate this that is actually formless .... a very light-occluding idea, indeed.
*IF* this then displays in/from/as a given teacher or person who behaves in very deluded/egoic ways .... then enlightenment wasn't the permanent condition that is sometimes used to define enlightenment .... but something temporary.
Sincerity and honesty within oneself are the keys, here; if there's no-mind, mind-reference, on any level, in any way, is counter-productive to re-introduce. If there's limited-mind/ego for more than the briefest moment (if ego/limited mind) re-appears ... then a return to the practices/vigilance which assist the dissolution of any reliance upon, or belief in, the distortions of ego ... is the only sincere thing to do.
It seems as though you may not have understood that I was aware of this ... and now, hopefully, you are.
If you still have concern, please know that I do understand your warnings.
And also, it seems you may not have understood:
I've been through the process of the needed vigilance, and have been through the phasing in-and-out which happens after realization; that's what the last few years of my life, have been.
If you look at the time frame of the total sadhana of various enlightened people (quote unquote) .... everyone from Adyashanti and Yogani, to Nisargadatta and Gangaji .... you'll basically be able to plot both time and practices on a chart ... and see an average range from starting to realization to permanent enlightenment.
This may not have been clear, because I wasn't announcing my sense of where I was, every step of the way .... but I have been through this full process .... and both my sadhana, and the time it took to full (not final .... not static ... full ... which is simply the term arising, btw) enlightenment ... falls comfortably within the general range that it seems to take for most people.
Some of the very fortunate go very fast, and experience complete and permanent enlightenment within a short handful of years.
Others may resist clear and replicable instruction, or they may resist releasing the conceptual me ... or not be taught that ultimately, via practices and/or inquiry, that release of the conceptual me *is* the process of moving from apparent unenlightenment to actual enlightenment.
Most, including myself, fall into/within a total trajectory that usually take somewhere around 10-12 years from "start of spiritual path" to "full enlightenment" ......... though my sense of it is: anyone reading this can experience full, permanent enlightenment *much* faster than this.
Most of us who fall in the mid-range stated above ... spend probably half that time not knowing or understanding the right things; the most effective practices, the most useful way to conduct inquiry, etc.
The AYP Lessons has it ALL my friends; if this is your first day reading anything connected with AYP .... there is no reason I know that experiencing full and permanent enlightenment should be more than maybe six to ten years away .... at the very most .... and that's if you've never heard the word "spirituality" in your life before today, and never meditated for a *second*.
And I'm being very conservative in my estimate, here.
"A day" or "right now" doesn't seem to be what most actually experience ... but it doesn't have to take twenty years/not in this lifetime, either.
With effective practices, self-pacing, clear inquiry, group support ... and your own willingness to simply do what others, such as myself, have done to get here .... enlightenment is very much within range for you, and quite possibly even sooner than what I outlined, above.
I understand that there may be a few who may not believe me, or believe this; that's fine; belief isn't required .... only practice, sincerity and awareness are required ... because, ultimately ... enlightenment is just the full knowing of who you actually, are now.
quote:
All I can say is that Yogani has talked about omnipresence with me (which I quoted above), and about the practices, which lead to its development.
That's a very good/useful thread/conversation; I recommend it to all.
quote:
Now everything that Yogani has said to me in the past, which I have been able to verify through my own experience, has turned out to be true.
Same here; that's one of the main reasons I've stuck around, why I like it here, and why I enthusiastically refer people here.
quote:
But, as you, I have already experienced the freedom, peace, joy and love which is beyond the mind, so the simple answer really is, yes, I believe him.
Very good; I agree ... and would also say that I verify/concur with everything Yogani says, based upon experiencing here .... understanding that I define the "omni" terms differently than you seem to be understanding them ... and will go as far as to guess that Yogani likely defines/experiences omniscience and the rest similar to how I'm defining describing them .... the fullness of awareness is marvelous and infinity ... but infinity, eternity and everything omni .... is the realm of the formless/subjective ... original awareness ...... and not superhuman form.
quote:
I also understand what you and Wayne are saying, that if someone believes that they cannot be free until they are able to manifest half a dozen siddhis, walk on water and raise the dead, then they could simply be delaying their own liberation. That is true as well. But the flip side of that is (per the quote by Yogani above) that denying siddhis, and the other aspects of our divine potential, could also limit the process of the spiritual transformation of humanity.
Yes, absolutely agreed .... "from attachment and aversion be free" as the Gita says, for anyone seeking.
Freedom from (such) attachment or aversion going either way, regarding anything ... is simply experiencing, here.
Reliance upon/belief in concepts .... requires the conceptual self; when the conceptual self finally dissolves ..... there's no interest in concepts.
For anyone who's experiencing this ..... "quite the relief", yes?
For any who's not .... if it sounds really nice .... it is ..... only a million times better than mind can imagine ... because it's closer/more integral than breathing ever could be; enlightenment is living; living unbound; and it is real ..... and I truly don't even want anyone to take my word for it.
I'm just inviting your experiencing of enlightenment.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 28 2009 11:07:28 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2009 : 12:09:00 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
Thanks for the detailed reply.
I think we are finally starting to get somewhere. It may well feel that we are going in circles to you, but to me, I feel that progress is being made.
First off, let me just mention that I am not questioning the truth of anything you have said with regard to your own experiencing (and never have). It fills me with joy that you have attained such a profound realization and I am very happy for you. What I have been discussing with you is of the, "how best to share" and "where to next" variety, not the "are you making it up" variety.
There were just a couple of points that you made that I wanted to clarify/ comment on:
quote:
*Christi feels that saying "enlightenment is real" is equivalent to teaching about enlightenment and certain warnings issued, and/or "care taken" when making such a statement, so as not to hinder or harm other yogic practitioners.
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that making the statement "enlightenment is real", is akin to teaching about enlightenment. I was saying that more extended statements such as: "Enlightenment is real, it can be experienced right now and all you have to do is give up all ideas about being unenlightened", constitutes teaching about enlightenment, and when statements like that are being offered, then some caveats should also be put in place to help protect the reader. You may not agree with that, and that is fine, but I just wanted to make it clear what I was actually saying. It may sound, per this thread, that I am the only person in the world who has these concerns, but then, in the bigger picture, I actually only mention these things very occasionally, (two or three times in the last few years in fact) whereas Yogani has written a whole book about the subject.
quote:
Interestingly, you repeatedly warn against fixed view, yet (please correct me, if this is not accurate, in your experiencing) .... yet you seem to be holding the fixed view that my experiencing cannot be called enlightenment, accurately .... based on other fixed views (concepts regarding what enlightenment means, concepts regarding what the parameters of enlightenment are, etc.)
Just to clarify again, I wasn't saying that identification with subjective awareness isn't enlightenment. I was saying that in my experience it is part of the process of enlightenment which starts with the rise of ecstasy and bliss, moves on to include a shift in identity to subjective awareness and goes on well beyond that. I don't hold this as some kind of fixed view, after all, I may be wrong. It's more in the sense of, many spiritual teachers say it is, it has been true for myself up until the point I am at now, and I have encountered one man for who it obviously was true. He was simply a living expression of that part of the enlightenment process which went beyond identification with subjective awareness to include omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and the celestial realms.
quote:
Enlightenment is a word.
You don't like my use of the word enlightenment, in describing my recent shift/experiences, or in telling others that enlightenment is possible.
Again, just to clarify, I am perfectly happy with your use of the word enlightenment in describing your recent shift/ experiences, and I am overjoyed that you are telling others that enlightenment is possible.
quote:
And so, I can only conclude (please correct me, if my conclusion isn't accurate) ... that you solely wish to make clear that you won't accept/believe what I have to say, no matter how many times I say it, or how many hopefully-more-clear ways.
That's perfectly fine, of course ... I'm just not really seeing the value in going around "yet again" ... but at the same time, I genuinely don't mind.
If it sounds like I am repeating myself a lot, it is often in response to me saying something like: "I think it is really important to be aware of A", and you replying: "Yes, I agree completely, it is really important to be aware of B". Where the A and the B are not the same thing at all. The clarifications that I just made are cases in point.
If I ask a question and you say: "great question" and then answer a different question which you thought I had asked, but which in fact I had not, then often, I just ask the question again with the hope that you might actually answer it this time. I am sure you don’t mind.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues over opposing fixed views often end either two ways, in confusion (in the form of: “but I can’t understand why nobody understands what I’m saying?”), or in frustration (in the form of: “if you don’t agree with me you can... *$$*”).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I see this, too, and have experienced it, many times (both as "concept-holder", in the past, and when someone else didn't agree with, or like, what I was saying.)
In saying "people respond" .... or whatever I said, this was my sincere-attempt-to-be-polite way of not "singling out" you and TI .... though there was no reason to do this; the authors of every post being quite clear.
I'd have to look back and see what I said (as Adyashanti says: "Hell, *I* don't remember what I say ... I don't know why anyone else bothers!")
And, if I ever came across as seeming like I was in the latter "mode or mood" ... I wasn't.
My comment there was in reference to Wayne's first post in this thread, which seemed to be coming from a place of frustration, per the bad language and the general disparaging remarks. It is of course fine for people to be frustrated and/ or angry, but usually there is a reason behind it, hence my comments about attachment to views.
quote:
I actually don't believe anything.
Belief is conceptual; there's truly no interest in the conceptual, here -- other than as a potential tool, in certain very specific instances (maps and models of consciousness which may serve to help people *out* of unconsciousness more quickly ... which involves awareness, and understanding that all maps and models are the finger ..... and the one's experiencing alone is/can be, the moon).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may have been told it is true, or read it in a book, but that doesn’t make it true. So basically that idea (the idea that enlightenment is only what you -Kirtanman- are experiencing and nothing else) is an idea formation in your mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've done my best not to operate from conceptual belief for quite some time, having understood that illusion can only be kept in place by it.
Belief is the single most powerful enlightenment-prevention tool in existence.
A couple of weeks ago we were having a discussion in another thread about Sanskrit translation (you may remember) and you were so attached to the belief that one man's definition of a word was right, that it was almost impossible to hold a sensible conversation with you. There were more than a couple of moments where I thought: "this guy is so attached to the idea that his view is right that I might as well just give up the conversation." But if you have moved on from that in the last couple of weeks, and now no longer hold fixed views then that is great and I am very happy for you.
I would only caution that a couple of weeks is a very short time for awareness to become fully established in a place which is really beyond all attachment to views and opinions and perhaps a couple of years, or decades would be a more reasonable time-frame to be thinking of before saying: "That doesn't happen here any more".
I know you will take these comments in a good light, because after all, one of the advantages of being enlightened is that nothing in conceptual form could ever touch the joy, freedom and bliss of pure radiant awareness.
quote:
Very good; I agree ... and would also say that I verify/concur with everything Yogani says, based upon experiencing here .... understanding that I define the "omni" terms differently than you seem to be understanding them ... and will go as far as to guess that Yogani likely defines/experiences omniscience and the rest similar to how I'm defining describing them .... the fullness of awareness is marvelous and infinity ... but infinity, eternity and everything omni .... is the realm of the formless/subjective ... original awareness ...... and not superhuman form.
By your definition I am already omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. I feel great now, thanks!
But seriously, I wonder if you aren't reducing something that is more than simply identification with subjective awareness to... well... identification with subjective awareness. In another thread you said that you believed that the creation of a body of divine light was... well... identification with subjective awareness. Anyone can define terms in any way they want, but if we redefine all our terms to basically mean one thing, and then say: "Look, it's all this one thing", then what have we really accomplished?
We are not going to be able to agree on this now (what is really meant by the terms omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent with regard to the enlightenment process), because there isn't really any way that we could, and it really doesn't matter. Either time will tell, or it won't, but as I say, I don't think it really matters.
In the meantime take a look at this from lesson 153:
"So samyama is also cultivation of the outflowing of divine love which expects nothing in return. If we do our samyama that way, in time we will become radiating beacons of divine light floating in the air.
Then who will be able to deny what we human beings are? Who will not want to become super-normal? "[Yogani]
The man I met who was experiencing omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience according to the standard dictionary definitions of those terms, was radiating light, and floating in the air. Could just be coincidence?
One of the areas that interests me, with regards to siddhis and enlightenment, is the fact that Yogani doesn't simply teach people to ignore siddhis. If enlightenment is the process of shifting identification from form to subjective awareness, and that is the whole of it, then why doesn't Yogani simply tell people to ignore siddhis as they come up? After all, their cultivation wouldn't be necessary for enlightenment to come about and could even be a distraction (as you and Wayne have mentioned). There are many lessons in the main lessons, which are about the deliberate cultivation of siddhis.
Does Yogani have a siddhi fixation, or does he know something that we don’t about the process of enlightenment?
This is probably a question that I should be addressing to Yogani, rather than to you, but I am throwing it in here as food for thought.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Nov 29 2009 12:11:36 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Wayne Wirs: Newly-Minted Enlightened Guy
Topic Locked
