|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 29 2009 : 6:10:23 PM
|
Hi Shanti,
That is a very lovely post. Thank you so much. :)
quote:
Originally posted by Shanti
When we believe in Jesus we can make Jesus manifest, if we believe in life outside of the forms we know, we can make aliens manifest, when we believe in miracles (siddhis) we can make miracles manifest.
Perhaps I would reword your statement, because I feel that I did not manifest Jesus. I know you explain that later in your post but, well, I have to say something.. :) I would say "When we make an effort to contact Jesus, Jesus will appear." But yes, belief if a very powerful tool.
quote:
I did not realize the trick was in letting go.
This kind of reminds me of the philosophy behind The Secret. Lately I've been coming accross people like Bruce Roberts and the Hawaiian monks who are saying the exact opposite of 'letting go'.
They both say that in order to manifest something, you have to put all your will/energy/determination/effort/visualization into a relentless effort and stick with it as much as you can. For example, in Merging with Shiva it says:
link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/res...s_ch-11.html
quote:
In applying this tantra, begin by repeating the affirmation fifty or a hundred times a day. In watching your reactions, you may find that the subconscious will not accept these three statements, "I can. I will. I am able." You may still have feelings of "I can't. I won't. I am not able." This then begins a period to live through where the mind's magnetic forces fight with one another, in a sense. The aggressive forces of your nature are trying to take over and reprogram the passive ones that have been in charge for so many years. Of course, the aggressive forces will win if you will persist with your verbal and visual affirmation. You must not give up saying, "I can. I will. I am able," until you find the subconscious structure actually creating situations for you in which you can and are able to be successful, happy and acquire what you need, be it temporal goods or unfoldment on the inner path.
Personally, I have tried the methods in The Secret and they did not work for me. I have, however, worked hard towards goals and those goals have nearly always manifested. If a person could love God, 24/7 with no interruptions, they would surely become enlightened.
I believe the power of letting go for manifestion can be productive once you are in a state of deep silence, such as in the AYP's samyama practice, or after empowering your mind through very deep concentrative meditation or after attaining samadhi or one of the jhanas...
Also I believe the idea of not focussing on the outcome is part of a mindfulness method to enable one to be fully present when performing simple tasks and that there is great value in not attaching to the outcome. It is also good not to be attached to anything.
So you see, yes, I do have these beliefs in my suitcase. I will throw the suitcase in the river and let Shakti wash it away.. :)
I wish you all the best. Thank you again for your post.
OM SHANTI :)
:)
TI
|
 |
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2009 : 6:22:29 PM
|
Those two are not opposite; they go together.
You have to put all your effort into something, and at the same time not be attached to it.
It's kinda tricky, but it's the difference between forcing a goal and enjoying the path. |
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2009 : 7:09:07 PM
|
Hi Wayne,
Thank you for your post. :)
I forgot to mention, your pictures all look like satori moments to me. I absolutely love them all.
quote:
Originally posted by WayneWirs
All the great teachings say the same thing. You wake up by FEELING who you truly are (ie: Out-flowing Love, Christ consciousness, the Radiant Light) and then DROPPING everything that is BLOCKING that FEELING.
Understanding is important, but FEELING it (practice, practice, practice) is what is so often overlooked these days.
That feeling of who I truly am exists right in front of my face. It is 'that which doesn't change, that feeling that was there when I was a child, that feeling which expands into the forests and scenic landscapes, the feeling that produces a deep aware silence that permeates everything and makes things shine, that awareness that is beyond thought, beyond description, far beyond.. Sometimes it looks like this clear sparkly water coming out from me, radiant and shiny, yet just a tiny bit translucent. I love it!'.
Thank you so much for affirming this.
quote:
PS: TI, I know it sounds like I'm jumping on you (or your personal story), and I am, but it is because, from some of your remarks, you sound like you are close to awakening--but your attachment to the miraculous is actually what is blocking you from waking up (for all the reasons stated above). The miraculous happens because there is LESS of you standing in the way of the Divine, but if you hang onto those miracles, then you create MORE of you (the story), and thus BLOCK the Divine from flowing through. Just let it flow, bud. Let the story go, surrender, and let the Light flow through.
I think anyone who would read my posts might think that I'm an arrogant braggart who is seeking self aggrandizement through the revealing of "things I can do that you can't" point of view, if they did not understand my point of view or know my personal history. Did you know that I haven't had a recreational drug or alcoholic drink for at least 25 years (besides coffee and nicotine)? I'm not bragging here, but I guess it might look like it. I'm just stating a fact which is true for me. I guess it appears that I'm bragging to someone who places that on their ego-envy pedestal for viewing..
That is always a danger. Revealing some experiences that you have had to someone who does not often produces tamasic feelings of envy, desire, hatred etc in the other person unless they have had the same experiences.. Sometimes you think that everybody is just like you so it is really hard to know what to say and what not to say or how it will be taken.
The reason I brought in the miracles is because Kirtanman deemphasized the importance and experience of miracles, and having had practical experiences in the matter, I decided to divulge mine.
There is no great attachment there, and certainly my miracles are few and far in between. There are many people on this forum who have performed more healings (Katrine, emc.. to name a few) than me. To the people I was with at the time when Fred was healed, it was a typical event for their weekly Wednesday night, before going out to 'preach the word on the street'. It is something they did every Wednesday night.
Anyway, thank you again for your perspective.
:)
TI
|
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2009 : 11:47:27 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman :)
Correct me if I am wrong, but utter non-existence is the primary foundation of Hegel's dialectic..
This is from the "Clear Light of Bliss" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso:
QUOTE:
"AVOIDING MISTAKING THE INTRODUCTION TO THE CONVENTIONAL NATURE OF THE MIND FOR AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ULTIMATE NATURE OF THE MIND
Some Mahamudra Teachers and practitioners assert that when a meditator directly perceives clarity and cognizing without the veil of conceptualization he or she has realized the emptiness that is the ultimate nature of the mind. This is because they believe that clarity and cognizing is the mind's ultimate nature. Students who listen to these instructions also fall into this mistaken view. This misconception arises from a failure to understand the correct view as explained by Protector Nagarjuna. They do not fully understand what 'ultimate nature' means and, if asked what the ultimate nature of the mind is, they cannot establish it as a non-affirming negative. They think that the ultimate nature of the mind is clarity and cognizing free of conceptualization; they do not realize that the ultimate nature of the mind is the non-affirming negative that is the mere absence of the inherent existence of the mind. This mere absence of inherent existence is very subtle and therefore quite difficult to comprehend. Clarity and cognizing, however, is not nearly as subtle and so it is relatively easy to understand. This is one reason why meditators can hold onto erroneous beliefs concerning the ultimate nature of the mind.
According to the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and the view of Nagarjuna, actual emptiness is mere absence of inherent existence, and so it is non-affirming negative. Those who do not understand the subtlety of this view are unable to see any difference between such a non-affirming negative and utter non-existence. For this reason, they make mistakes when trying to understand the ultimate nature of the mind. They assert that non-affirming negatives do not exist at all and therefore reject the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and the view of Nagarjuna. Instead, when they meditate merely on clarity and cognizing and experience it very vividly, they think they are realizing the emptiness that is the ultimate nature of the mind. The emptiness that they are experiencing, however, is merely the lack of physical form and the freedom from conceptualization; it is not lack of inherent existence.
The first Panchen Lama, Losang Chokyi Gyaltsan, soundly refuted this misconception. In his root text on the Mahamudra he wrote:
The mind that is free from conceptualization
Is merely a level of conventional mind;
It is not the mind's ultimate nature.
Therefore seek instruction from qualified Masters.
Thus, the Panchen Lama clearly stated that what some meditators take to be the ultimate nature of the mind - clarity and cognizing - is merely the mind's conventional nature.
If we mistakenly believe this conventional nature of the mind to be its ultimate nature, we may easily develop deluded pride and many other faults. For example, when through meditation we gain a vivid perception of clarity and cognizing, we may feel that we have gained a direct realization of emptiness, and, as it is possible to develop a slightly blissful feeling from such a meditation, we may conclude, 'Now I have developed the spontaneous great bliss of Secret Mantra.' Later we might even come to think, 'Now I have developed the Mahamudra that is the union of spontaneous great bliss and emptiness.' It is possible that, through the force of further meditation, we might for a short time become free from conceptual thought, in which case we may develop the deluded pride that thinks, 'Now I am free from the two obstructions; I have become a Buddha!' In reality, we will not have attained such a sublime state, and sooner or later we will have to confront circumstances, such as objects of anger or attachment, that give rise to the various deluded states of mind. It will then become evident that the 'enlightenment' we experienced was not even a realization of emptiness, let alone enlightenment. All these mistakes come from misunderstanding the ultimate nature of the mind as a result of not following the instructions of qualified Teachers, or not studying such instructions well.
The first Panchen Lama was a highly realized practitioner who always behaved in a very humble manner, but when writing about the need to refute mistaken and misleading teachings he was quite direct:
As we cannot perceive the mindstream of others,
We should stive to appreciate the teachings of all;
But I cannot accept those who spread wrong views
And through these wrong views lead many astray.
What the Panchen Lama wrote several hundred years ago is particularily applicable today. If pure Dharma is to flourish in western countries it is essential that we examine our beliefs carefully to ensure that they are fully in accordance with the pure teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni. The ugly unfortunate result of not understanding pure Dharma and of following misleading teachings that pretend to be pure Dharma is sectarianism. This is one of the greatest hinderances to the flourishing of Dharma, especially in the West. Anything that gives rise to such an evil, destructive mind should be eliminated as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.
Nowadays there is a strong tendency to believe without the slightest hesitation every word spoken by someone of high reputation, whereas a humble practitioner giving perfect and accurate teachings is often neither appreciated nor believed. Buddha Shakyamuni cautioned his disciples against adopting such a mistaken attitude:
Do not accept my teachings simply because I am called Buddha.
Time and time again he reminded his disciples not to accept his teachings out of blind faith, but to test them as thoroughly as they would assay gold. It is only on the basis of valid reasons and personal experience that we should accept the teachings of anyone, including Buddha himself.
In the teachings on the four reliances, Buddha gives further guidelines for arriving at an unmistaken understanding of the teachings. He says:
Do not rely upon the person, but upon the Dharma.
Do not rely upon the words, but upon the meaning.
Do not rely upon the interpretative meaning, but
upon the definitive meaning.
Do not rely upon consciousness, but upon wisdom.
The meaning of these lines is as follows:
1) When deciding which doctrine to rely upon we should not be satisfied with the fame or reputation of a particular teacher, but instead, should examine what he or she teaches. If upon investigation we find the teachings reasonable and faultless, we should accept them, but if they lack these qualities we should reject them, no matter how famous or charismatic their expounder might be.
2) We should not be influenced merely by the poetic or rhetorical style of a particular teaching but should accept if only if the actual meaning of the words is reasonable.
3) We should not be satisfied merely with an interpretative meaning of conventioanl truth but should rely upon and accept the dfinitive meaning of the ultimate truth of emptiness. In other words, because the method teachings on Bodhichitta and the wisdom teachings on emptiness and so forth are companions, we should not be satisfied with only one or the other but should practise both together.
4) We should not be satisfied with impure, deceptive states of consciousness, but should place our reliance upon the wisdom of meditative equipoise of Superior beings.
If we understand these four reliances and use the to evaluate the truth of the teachings we receive, we will be following an unmistaken path. There will be no danger of our adopting false views or falling under the influence of misleading Teachers. We will be able to discriminate correctly between what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected, and we will thereby be protected against faults such as sectarianism."
END QUOTE
So, Kirtanman, do you think there is any chance that you have a mistaken view of 'enlightenment' as described in this text? Have you gained "a vivid perception of clarity and cognizing" or have you realized non-affirming negative emptiness? I don't really want to know the answer to that. Is your need to write voluminous amounts of text that warp, twist and redefine the words of others an indication of some kind of delusion? That is for you to decide or discover. If I were you I would seriously look at that. You're supposed to be blissed out now, not 'trying to prove something' which is the general feeling that I have from your posts. The concepts have been documented and I think that is all I'd like to say about this topic at this time.
Thanks again for the dialectics.
May God bless you.
:)
TI |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 12:30:01 AM
|
Hi Christi
quote:
Hi Kirtanman,
Thanks for the detailed reply.
You're quite welcome.
quote:
I think we are finally starting to get somewhere. It may well feel that we are going in circles to you, but to me, I feel that progress is being made.
I'm good with that // will (good-naturedly // actually) take your word for it; I think the inverse has been true in a thread or two in the past .. so I'm happy to remain open-minded, and go with what you're saying here.
One of the main reasons being: if you say "progress is being made" .. hey, the fact you feel that way, is a good, sign (I had a sense that you felt "circling" was taking place, too .... just from a different angle .... or whatever circles have .... ).
quote:
"Enlightenment is real, it can be experienced right now and all you have to do is give up all ideas about being unenlightened", constitutes teaching about enlightenment, and when statements like that are being offered, then some caveats should also be put in place to help protect the reader. You may not agree with that, and that is fine, but I just wanted to make it clear what I was actually saying. It may sound, per this thread, that I am the only person in the world who has these concerns, but then, in the bigger picture, I actually only mention these things very occasionally, (two or three times in the last few years in fact) whereas Yogani has written a whole book about the subject.
Fair enough ... though I thought that I had clarified, early on, that I wasn't saying that, alone ... have always experienced practices as essential, and so on ... didn't I?
quote:
If it sounds like I am repeating myself a lot, it is often in response to me saying something like: "I think it is really important to be aware of A", and you replying: "Yes, I agree completely, it is really important to be aware of B". Where the A and the B are not the same thing at all. The clarifications that I just made are cases in point.
If I ask a question and you say: "great question" and then answer a different question which you thought I had asked, but which in fact I had not, then often, I just ask the question again with the hope that you might actually answer it this time. I am sure you don’t mind.
quote:
quote:
My comment there was in reference to Wayne's first post in this thread, which seemed to be coming from a place of frustration, per the bad language and the general disparaging remarks. It is of course fine for people to be frustrated and/ or angry, but usually there is a reason behind it, hence my comments about attachment to views.
To which I would respond:
But not necessarily.
Sometimes, there is presumption that enlightenment "should look" a certain way ... which is attachment to view (I'm not saying you're doing this ... it's just that, per above, it sounds like it's at least possible).
Just as an alternate perspective .... I didn't perceive any attachment to view in what Wayne says ... for one, because I experience his exact expression as more of a personality thing (than anything to do with enlightenment; as you may have noticed, personality doesn't dissolve, or even change much, with enlightenment ... it's hard-wired into the body-mind, for the most part). In the same way that I use a crapload of words, for "an enlightened guy" (or for an unenlightened guy ... or for a small-to-midsized country ... )... Wayne "tells it like it is"; neither of which has any bearing on how "enlightened" or not that either of us may be.
A great Adyashanti quote I read today:
"Evaluation of other people’s non-division is not helpful. The only thing that matters is where you are. In any moment, are you experiencing and acting from division, or are you experiencing and acting from oneness? Which is it?”
That sums the whole thing up, quite nicely, I'd say (very seriously).
quote:
quote:
A couple of weeks ago we were having a discussion in another thread about Sanskrit translation (you may remember) and you were so attached to the belief that one man's definition of a word was right, that it was almost impossible to hold a sensible conversation with you. There were more than a couple of moments where I thought: "this guy is so attached to the idea that his view is right that I might as well just give up the conversation." But if you have moved on from that in the last couple of weeks, and now no longer hold fixed views then that is great and I am very happy for you.
Interestingly, Christi, my perspective was exactly the opposite:
It seemed that you held the fixed view that Swami Lakshmanjoo was "simply wrong" (I believe that's a direct quote from you), per your sense that the term "Devas" could not possibly be referring to sensory organs, because this definition was at odds with with the parameters you imagine an accurate description of devas must fall within.
I was just citing sources and resources, along with my relatively considered view as to why/how that definition was as potentially useful as any other.
Definition is usually part of the problem; if a term, or a symbol (such as "deva", or anything else for that matter) can be utilized to help take consciousness *out* of the dream state ... I saw that as useful; that's all.
Informational support for an informational argument (used in the logic sense, not the disagreement sense) does not necessarily indicate "fixed view", any more than expression of frustration (or any other expression).
As Adyashanti helpfully points out in that quote:
It's about whether or not non-division is the experience; period.
Is there, or is there not, conflict, in experience?
When we were having the discussion about Swami Lakshmanjoo, I felt zero division ... and zero attachment to any view, actually; I was simply pointing out that I felt there was significant reference for the view I was supporting as being reasonable, well-considered, promoted by very qualified people, regarding the topic at hand ... and, more important than any of those ... potentially useful as an illustration that can help facilitate enlightenment.
I was having a good time; it seemed you basically were, too. I figure if anyone is ever "truly not" .. it's probably best to stop a discussion at that point; goodwill is more important than being relatively "right" or "wrong", I'm guessing we both agree ... though neither of us are too susceptible to "ill will" either, so hey, it's all good.
quote:
quote:
I would only caution that a couple of weeks is a very short time for awareness to become fully established in a place which is really beyond all attachment to views and opinions and perhaps a couple of years, or decades would be a more reasonable time-frame to be thinking of before saying: "That doesn't happen here any more".
Ultimately, and I'll "call myself" on not being rigorous enough, to date, regarding what I'm about to say:
*Nothing* can be said to "not happen here" any longer ... by anyone; if it hasn't happened yet, prediction is just an exercise in imagination; Adyashanti makes this point in the interview at the end of End of Your World.
He hasn't had the experience of being "lost in ego" for years ... but acknowledges than any prediction about the next moment on would just be imagination ... that's it's "not knowable".
That's experiencing here, too; there's truly not interest in not-now ... along with a deeply felt sense of non-attachment to limited me-story ... and very little arising of it at all ... basically the same levels that Adya talks about in that interview ... or that Nisargadatta mentioned:
Untrue thoughts are generated .. and they are seen through and released in what feels kind of like a single, simultaneous movement ... though which Adya still terms "inquiry".
And so:
Sure ... who knows?
(Regarding the future; when it's now, we'll experience it, and we'll know; the future is always a concept, now).
In the meantime, though ... I've seen a couple of examples from you, in this post .. where your perception of "fixed view" either was inaccurate (my case, per my recall of my own experience) or could well have been inaccurate (Wayne's case).
quote:
quote:
I know you will take these comments in a good light, because after all, one of the advantages of being enlightened is that nothing in conceptual form could ever touch the joy, freedom and bliss of pure radiant awareness.
Hm .... "pleasant sentiment" ... "blatant sarcasm" ... or "brilliant English humor" .... one wonders ......
PS: Seriously? That's not true at all; that's one of the most mega enlightenment-myths of all (which is why I'm commenting, here).
The full range of human experiencing is enjoyed and lived in enlightenment; the full range.
It's not about escaping "negative" emotions; negative emotions are only negative by definition; if/when they happen, they're simply the experiencing of the moment.
Once again (and I'm loving this term) .... it's about non-division.
Wayne Liquorman tells the story of how, prior to his spiritual path ... if he missed a plane, he'd shout "Godda****!!" (<- I forget forum "profanity parameters", so am erring on the safe side; I have no problem simply writing the full term, or any other).
Once *on* the path, he would wonder what it *meant* that he missed the plane ... "Maybe it's a sign ... from another ..... plane ....".
Now, in enlightenment ... if he misses a plane (you guessed it) ... he shouts "Godda****!!".
quote:
quote:
Very good; I agree ... and would also say that I verify/concur with everything Yogani says, based upon experiencing here .... understanding that I define the "omni" terms differently than you seem to be understanding them ... and will go as far as to guess that Yogani likely defines/experiences omniscience and the rest similar to how I'm defining describing them .... the fullness of awareness is marvelous and infinity ... but infinity, eternity and everything omni .... is the realm of the formless/subjective ... original awareness ...... and not superhuman form.
quote:
By your definition I am already omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. I feel great now, thanks!
quote:
quote:
But seriously, I wonder if you aren't reducing something that is more than simply identification with subjective awareness to... well... identification with subjective awareness. In another thread you said that you believed that the creation of a body of divine light was... well... identification with subjective awareness. Anyone can define terms in any way they want, but if we redefine all our terms to basically mean one thing, and then say: "Look, it's all this one thing", then what have we really accomplished?
Umm .... "Harmony with reality as closely as words can accomplish??"
Seems like a worthwhile accomplishment.
Seriously: here's the deal with that, in my experience ("experiencing here", etc. etc.) ...
What you're calling subjective awareness, I usually term original awareness, or formless awareness ... only because I feel that these terms are more clear than "subjective" ... which some people confuse with "could be one's imagination" (i.e. "Dude, that's like, totally subjective!") ... when the term is used, as ... well ... an object (please see preceding example).
As opposed to the correct definition which is: the one experiencing (i.e. in the sentence "I am going to the store" ... I ... is the subject; in the sentence "I am all this" (the experiencing of the consciousness of Sadashiva, in Kashmir Shaivism ... unbound subjective awarness) ... I ... is the subject.
HERE'S THE REALLY IMPORTANT PART:
Formless awareness IS the very ground of being; there is nothing beyond it; all arises from it now ..... all.
Space, Time; Form (any/all ... Universes, Galaxies, your left knee, an irritable cab driver; a mosquito; the Himalayas; angels, demons, archangels, gods, God, Mickey Mouse, and so on .... *really*).
If I appear to be "dissing" (or at least "discounting") some other views (for instance "further development with respect to the subtle body", or miracles, or siddhis or whatever) ..... I'm actually not (dissing or discounting).
I've just be trying to explain how/why they relate to enlightenment (they don't).
Enlightenment is dropping the story of the conceptual me, including attachment to form, and confusing form with reality.
And so, when one experiences oneself as formless awareness, in conjunction with the experiencing of how, exactly all form arises (I mentioned to TI that I spent quite a bit of deep meditation experiencing ... experiencing/"getting" this).
All traditions speak of it, and symbolize it in different ways.
Most have a three, four or fivefold model, which simply describes the flow from the ground of being (formless awareness) out to manifestation ... and back again.
This happens every moment/perception, every lifetime, etc.
And so: siddhis may well be real, certain types of synergistic, miracle-like circumstances, similar to what TI has described, I've experienced; angels and other non-physical beings may well exist (you and TI say you've experienced them, as do others).
My point was simply: "unity consciousness" as you term it, may or may not be a "breakthrough yet stop along the way", depending upon what, exactly you're terming "unity consciousness".
What I'm terming formless awareness/ground of being is the experiencing of self as the "subject who can never be made an object" as Kashmir Shaivism terms it, and knowing self as the ground of all manifestation ... not in a "woo-hoo" sense ... in a "this is how awareness/being actually is" sense.
Most of what we're discussing here is concept and imagination; even if it's memory of actual experiencing ... it's concept and imagination ... the last stop before physical manifestation ... and the return arc back to infinity/eternity ground-of-being ... which swings back out toward manifestation .... passing into emanation, creation, formation ... and manifestation/action, again.
That's why Yogani speaks of "dialing up" a solar system or a galaxy, because "we're already t/here".
A good example of a symbol outlining exactly what I'm referring to is the well-know six-pointed star of Judaism and Tantric Hinduism (the overlaid triangles symbolize the Heart; the unity of objective and subjective, of manifest and unmanifest ... awareness, in enlightened humanity.
quote:
quote:
We are not going to be able to agree on this now (what is really meant by the terms omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent with regard to the enlightenment process), because there isn't really any way that we could, and it really doesn't matter. Either time will tell, or it won't, but as I say, I don't think it really matters.
Agreed (doesn't really matter).
Reality is what's happening now ..... and it's so easy to become involved in discussions about conceptual items/issues.
I enjoy them, more than most people (*obviously*) .... but they (conceptual discussions), especially, have nothing to do with enlightenment ..... only our own experience has anything to do with enlightenment.
quote:
In the meantime take a look at this from lesson 153:
"So samyama is also cultivation of the outflowing of divine love which expects nothing in return. If we do our samyama that way, in time we will become radiating beacons of divine light floating in the air.
Then who will be able to deny what we human beings are? Who will not want to become super-normal? "[Yogani]
And?
I'm not getting that Yogani is referring to levitation, here .... is that what you're presuming? Or are you just referring to the phrase "super-normal"?
Pure awareness is "a radiating beacon of divine light floating in the air" .... as opposed to anything illegal (breaking the laws of physics .... ) ... that the physical body might do.
And I admit: my fragile little mind may have been warped by Abhinavagupta and friends; *those* guys have the audacity to suggest (as have I; I "cribbed" awareness of this from them ....) ..... that the ashtasiddhis (the "eight perfections" ... levitation, expansion to infinity size, contraction to the size of an atom, and so on ... such as Hanuman the monkey-god is said to have done) ...... are referring to *awareness* .... not to the *physical body*.
No fun at all, those guys ..... but they have this weird way of .... making a lot of sense, somehow ....
It's almost as though they're saying that we *really* are awareness, and not the physical body .... and so:
"The yogi shall have the power to float in the air, and to expand to infinite size ..." ... and so on.
Because that's what awareness can do ... and so, when we come to know we're awareness ... we have those siddhis.
"Hm."
quote:
quote:
The man I met who was experiencing omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience according to the standard dictionary definitions of those terms, was radiating light, and floating in the air. Could just be coincidence?
Physically?
No wires (attached to this gentleman; how about fluorescent lighting)?
No ingestion of interesting substances on your part (prior to this experience)?
(You were) Not dreaming?
(This was) Not during a vision (you were having)?
Just askin' ......
quote:
quote:
One of the areas that interests me, with regards to siddhis and enlightenment, is the fact that Yogani doesn't simply teach people to ignore siddhis. If enlightenment is the process of shifting identification from form to subjective awareness, and that is the whole of it, then why doesn't Yogani simply tell people to ignore siddhis as they come up? After all, their cultivation wouldn't be necessary for enlightenment to come about and could even be a distraction (as you and Wayne have mentioned). There are many lessons in the main lessons, which are about the deliberate cultivation of siddhis.
I need to review the main lessons; I somehow missed the "deliberate cultivation of siddhis" part.
As far as why Yogani doesn't tell people to ignore siddhis .... you'd have to ask him.
I'm pretty sure he strongly advises to ignore *scenery* though .... even to the point that (if I recall correctly) ... "Jesus descends in a flaming chariot, and offers to take you for a ride" ... you gently return to the mantra ... or some such (it involved a flaming chariot as a general example of the "scenery" we are to ignore; I'm a bit fuzzy on the rest of it.)
.... which I kind of take to be saying the *same* thing Wayne and I have been saying, which is:
Get enlightened; then worry about it; if it's important, it'll come up then.
In the meantime (because enlightenment involves dropping the story of being a me, who has experiences of any type ... which involves knowing self as formless awareness) ... *any* focus on experiences or form of *any* type ... whether issues at the office, or attending the creation and destruction of universes ..... is a distraction from the most important awakening-returning in all lifetimes:
Enlightenment itself.
Seriously: you can have the most amazing array of siddhis in meta-galatic ultra-history .... and at the end of the eons .... you're hosed; you're still identified with *matter* .... you're ... still .... DREAMING.
In enlightenment ..... you're free to dream ... but all form is known-lived-living as a lucid dream ... and so, you're free.
That's all; it's not about the real or unreal per se; it's about how the "pieces" fit together (form is subsequent and subsidiary to the formless awareness we actually are ... it extends from this) ... and who/what we actually are (original; not subsequent or subsidiary to anything).
If we were talking about waves instead of people, we'd be talking about knowing self as the wetness permeating the ocean; there's no real "line" at the base of the wave; that's a concept; if the ocean dried out, there would be no waves.
If awareness dried out/died out .... there would be no people, or angels or siddhis or anything.
"Selflessness arises out of the realization
that you are the world and much more as well.
All arises within you and is an expression of you."
~Adyashanti
quote:
quote:
Does Yogani have a siddhi fixation, or does he know something that we don’t about the process of enlightenment?
Yogani would be the best resource to answer that question, I'd say.
quote:
This is probably a question that I should be addressing to Yogani, rather than to you, but I am throwing it in here as food for thought.
And here I thought you were being nice ....
I've never seen Yogani as having any kind of fixation, per se ... and of teaching essentially the same thing that other qualified, non-duality-oriented (in terms of experiencing oneness ... not in terms of "advaita philosophy") instructors of consciousness principles teach:
Practice and inquire; and don't feed the inclination of mind to become distracted by scenery (whether regarding siddhis, miracles, angels, relationships, work, which guru/teacher/cartoon character is wisest/coolest/best looking ..... etc. etc. etc. etc.) .... which approach will help you to know for yourself, rather than to loop in theory and imagination .... because (as Yogani puts it) ... "the guru is in you."
My sense of it, anyway.
It's working out okay for me.
If your sense of it (Yogani's teachings, what they mean, etc.) working out okay for you ... that's all that counts, yes?
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 30 2009 09:55:07 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 09:40:31 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
I'm good with that // will (good-naturedly // actually) take your word for it; I think the inverse has been true in a thread or two in the past .. so I'm happy to remain open-minded, and go with what you're saying here.
One of the main reasons being: if you say "progress is being made" .. hey, the fact you feel that way, is a good, sign (I had a sense that you felt "circling" was taking place, too .... just from a different angle .... or whatever circles have .... ).
There can be both circling (of discussion) and progression (of understanding) both happening at the same time, no?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Enlightenment is real, it can be experienced right now and all you have to do is give up all ideas about being unenlightened", constitutes teaching about enlightenment, and when statements like that are being offered, then some caveats should also be put in place to help protect the reader. You may not agree with that, and that is fine, but I just wanted to make it clear what I was actually saying. It may sound, per this thread, that I am the only person in the world who has these concerns, but then, in the bigger picture, I actually only mention these things very occasionally, (two or three times in the last few years in fact) whereas Yogani has written a whole book about the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough ... though I thought that I had clarified, early on, that I wasn't saying that, alone ... have always experienced practices as essential, and so on ... didn't I?
Yes you did, and I thought we had been over it half a dozen times and that we were both clear on the matter, but then you made another statement about something that I had said that wasn't true (in terms of, I hadn't actually said that), so I thought that maybe it was necessary to clarify (yet again). No worries here, I'm happy to keep clarifying as long as it takes.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment there was in reference to Wayne's first post in this thread, which seemed to be coming from a place of frustration, per the bad language and the general disparaging remarks. It is of course fine for people to be frustrated and/ or angry, but usually there is a reason behind it, hence my comments about attachment to views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which I would respond: but not necessarily.
Sometimes, there is presumption that enlightenment "should look" a certain way ... which is attachment to view (I'm not saying you're doing this ... it's just that, per above, it sounds like it's at least possible).
Just as an alternate perspective .... I didn't perceive any attachment to view in what Wayne says ... for one, because I experience his exact expression as more of a personality thing (than anything to do with enlightenment; as you may have noticed, personality doesn't dissolve, or even change much, with enlightenment ... it's hard-wired into the body-mind, for the most part). In the same way that I use a crapload of words, for "an enlightened guy" (or for an unenlightened guy ... or for a small-to-midsized country ... )... Wayne "tells it like it is"; neither of which has any bearing on how "enlightened" or not that either of us may be.
A great Adyashanti quote I read today:
"Evaluation of other people’s non-division is not helpful. The only thing that matters is where you are. In any moment, are you experiencing and acting from division, or are you experiencing and acting from oneness? Which is it?”
That sums the whole thing up, quite nicely, I'd say (very seriously).
I wasn't commenting on enlightenment at all there. I wasn't saying that enlightenment should look a certain way. I was commenting on something I have noticed about human behaviour and was saying that when there is a lot of swearing going on and general disparaging remarks it is (almost always in my experience) a symptom of anger and frustration, even if it is occurring on a very subtle level. I was also saying that anger and frustration come about as a result of attachment to form (including views). When attachment is no longer operating as a factor then anger simply doesn't arise. In it's place there is peace and joy.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of weeks ago we were having a discussion in another thread about Sanskrit translation (you may remember) and you were so attached to the belief that one man's definition of a word was right, that it was almost impossible to hold a sensible conversation with you. There were more than a couple of moments where I thought: "this guy is so attached to the idea that his view is right that I might as well just give up the conversation." But if you have moved on from that in the last couple of weeks, and now no longer hold fixed views then that is great and I am very happy for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, Christi, my perspective was exactly the opposite:
It seemed that you held the fixed view that Swami Lakshmanjoo was "simply wrong" (I believe that's a direct quote from you), per your sense that the term "Devas" could not possibly be referring to sensory organs, because this definition was at odds with with the parameters you imagine an accurate description of devas must fall within.
Not at all. What I actually said was that Swami Lakshmanjoo was speculating over a possible interpretation of the word Deva, as used in the Gita and that this could be a useful interpretation. In other words I was saying his interpretation might be right or it might be wrong, and I was exploring the likely-hood that it was in fact what Krishna had meant when he used the word.
See here:
http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....D=6437#58019
Maybe you skipped over that post?
quote:
I was having a good time; it seemed you basically were, too (I figure if anyone is ever "truly not" .. it's probably best to stop a discussion at that point; goodwill is more important than being relatively "right" or "wrong", I'm guessing we both agree ... though neither of us are too susceptible to "ill will" either, so hey, it's all good.
I was having a great time.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you will take these comments in a good light, because after all, one of the advantages of being enlightened is that nothing in conceptual form could ever touch the joy, freedom and bliss of pure radiant awareness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hm .... "pleasant sentiment" ... "blatant sarcasm" ... or "brilliant English humor" .... one wonders ......
No brilliant English humour. Just truth.
When pure radiant awareness is the abiding condition of consciousness then there is a peace, freedom and joy, which cannot be disturbed by the content of the mind. Whatever arises passes away without leaving a trace. When attachment (tanha) is still present (even on a very subtle level) then we react according to our vasanas (mental tendencies), in which case anger, frustration, resentment or ill-will can still arise.
quote:
In the meantime take a look at this from lesson 153:
"So samyama is also cultivation of the outflowing of divine love which expects nothing in return. If we do our samyama that way, in time we will become radiating beacons of divine light floating in the air.
Then who will be able to deny what we human beings are? Who will not want to become super-normal? "[Yogani]
And?
I'm not getting that Yogani is referring to levitation, here .... is that what you're presuming? Or are you just referring to the phrase "super-normal"?
Pure awareness is "a radiating beacon of divine light floating in the air" .... as opposed to anything illegal (breaking the laws of physics .... ) ... that the physical body might do.
And I admit: my fragile little mind may have been warped by Abhinavagupta and friends; *those* guys have the audacity to suggest (as have I; I "cribbed" awareness of this from them ....) ..... that the ashtasiddhis (the "eight perfections" ... levitation, expansion to infinity size, contraction to the size of an atom, and so on ... such as Hanuman the monkey-god is said to have done) ...... are referring to *awareness* .... not to the *physical body*.
No fun at all, those guys ..... but they have this weird way of .... making a lot of sense, somehow ....
It's almost as though they're saying that we *really* are awareness, and not the physical body .... and so:
"The yogi shall have the power to float in the air, and to expand to infinite size ..." ... and so on.
Because that's what awareness can do ... and so, when we come to know we're awareness ... we have those siddhis.
The reason that I posted that quote from lesson 153 was in terms of reference to siddhis as part of the enlightenment process. I was basically saying that if the whole of the process of enlightenment was about identification with original awareness (I'll use your term) then why would Yogani want us to practice samyama in such a way that we become "beacons of divine light floating in the air". Why would he not want us to practice samyama in such a way that we become identified with original awareness? If you think that "floating in the air" is a good description of original awareness, then O.K. It just doesn't quite sit right for me. I would call it "stretching a definition".
My mentioning of the man I met who was floating in the air and radiating divine light and experiencing omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence was bacause he seemed to fit the description that Yogani gave in that lesson a lot better than "original awareness" does. It didn't involve any "stretching a definition".
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man I met who was experiencing omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience according to the standard dictionary definitions of those terms, was radiating light, and floating in the air. Could just be coincidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physically?
No wires (attached to this gentleman; how about fluorescent lighting)?
No ingestion of interesting substances on your part (prior to this experience)?
(You were) Not dreaming?
(This was) Not during a vision (you were having)?
Just askin' ......
He was in one of the celestial realms (also called upper heavenly realms) and I was there too. So yes, I wasn't asleep, there were no wires involved, no fluorescent lighting (although everything was self-radiant), no drugs etc.
In the bible it is the stuff that comes after statements like: "And I was taken up into the third heaven and I saw...". And yes, it is called revelation, or vision.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Nov 30 2009 4:50:02 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 3:36:52 PM
|
| Sometimes it is better to keep visitations a secret; they are the inner manifestation of one's Clear Light Mind. As such, spontaneous. Identified, concepts proliferate. Blessings fade away. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 4:10:25 PM
|
Hi Osel,
quote:
Sometimes it is better to keep visitations a secret; they are the inner manifestation of one's Clear Light Mind. As such, spontaneous. Identified, concepts proliferate. Blessings fade away.
Don't worry, blessings have not faded away here and they grow stronger by the day.
A lot of people do not speak openly about revelation or visions, largely because they would not be believed. But times are changing, and we are entering a more enlightened age where a lot of people are now turning towards the spiritual life, even among householders. So the age of secrecy is coming to an end.
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Nov 30 2009 4:12:09 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 7:43:40 PM
|
I see it very differently. I changed my name to Adamant Clear Light Mind.
Some teachings are secret due to their indescribability; some are secret because hidden in plain sight, others just feed the ego.
I would like to share my pure vision of the Adamant Clear Light Mind, where all things appear and disappear, visible to the naked eye; once settled, one is liberated into the wisdom lights. I don't know why I was directed to this teaching, but I was. No one but Vajrasattva and Vajradakini authorized me to teach things things that have been guarded with secrecy. But you are right. The cat is out of the bag. I've been directed to the summit of the Dzogchen teachings. One must have a pure heart and simple mind to see simplicity itself.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Nov 30 2009 9:12:01 PM |
|
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 8:52:26 PM
|
Hi TMS/Konchok/Adamant,
...why all the name changes TMS/Konchok/Adamant?
As to the debate as to what enlightenment is...
I've enjoyed the discussion and all the clever repartee...
Lots of very intelligent, knowledgeable people here...I'm very grateful for all the contributors.
I still don't know what enlightenment is...although I think outpouring divine love 24/7 and contentment is key.
I really don't think it can be verbally defined or articulated...what is the fun and mystery in that?
|
Edited by - machart on Dec 02 2009 01:09:02 AM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 9:32:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by machart
Hi TMS/Konchok/Adamant,
If the yogi did sh*t gold it had to hurt like a biiiaaatttcchhh!...so it was probably a blessing to return to sh*tting sh*t...
As an aside...why all the name changes TMS/Konchok/Adamant?
As to the debate as to what enlightenment is...
I've enjoyed the discussion and all the clever repartee...
Lots of very intelligent, knowledgeable people here...I'm very grateful for all the contributors.
I still don't know what enlightenment is...although I think outpouring divine love 24/7 is key.
probably will never know...That's OK
Because of all my changes. Some systems divine love is the key. The mind is inseparable from compassion and emptiness. The mind's natural radiance is the key, the door and the vista scene outside. The door leads outside into reality as it is without the gross limits of conceptual and perceptual focus. The radiance is accompanied with knowing, precognition and skills to assist beings. This superknowledge is enlightenment.
But quite simply I would say that enlightenment is no conceptual focus (the themeless, signless, wishless, identitylessness); samsara is conceptual focus. Learning to allow the concepts and perceptions to dissolve into the of mind's natural radiance is enlightenment of the right here and right now, before your very eyes, luminous.
It's very simply a natural function of the mind to return to normal when we stop habitually focusing or placing the mind on this or that. Ultimately the body dissolves into that natural radiance. Or at death, the mind itself does. But once the naturally luminous mind is a known, like seeing your mother's face that you know very well, the circling is over. Birth will never happen again. What happens here is enlightenment.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Nov 30 2009 10:33:35 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 11:29:18 PM
|
Hi Christi,
Just a (truly ....) quick note ... I'll plan to answer in (a less completely outrageous amount of) detail ... tomorrow:
Wow .... we really *are* getting someplace with this discussion; I wasn't too sure.
I agree with a good majority of things that you said, in your most recent post.
Example:
Your mentioned of the "vision" you referred to; I fully get (and have experienced) ... that vision (subtle form) ... does not mean "unreal" or imagination, as the term is usually used.
More later ... but in the meantime:
Thanks very much for this post; good stuff!!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 11:38:08 PM
|
Hi Kirtanman :)
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
A great Adyashanti quote I read today:
"Evaluation of other people’s non-division is not helpful. The only thing that matters is where you are. In any moment, are you experiencing and acting from division, or are you experiencing and acting from oneness? Which is it?”
That sums the whole thing up, quite nicely, I'd say (very seriously).
Not for me. How can you believe that stuff?
There is no such thing as acting from oneness. For starters, in order to 'act', one's energy must filter through the construct of the deep silence, intention, thought and then manifestation. In order to manifest, the manifestation must progress through the mental, emotional, etheric, electrical and physical body. By the time the 'act' is realized in the body, it has been divided so many times that Oneness is no longer there. Further the only way the brain realizes action is after it has occured by using memory. Acting from Oneness is a myth. It proves to me that Adyashanti just kind of says anything that dribbles down into his mind at the time.
How can anything that is beyond the mind act from Oneness? At a basic level, everything is already acting from Oneness, just as it is. Everything is divided. There is really no choice on the mundane level. Do you know anyone who can identify a act as 'not coming from oneness'? How would you know? How can you seriously tell someone to not act from a position of division?
This is just more of Adyshanti's babble.
Yup, I'm a nondualist, I act from Oneness. Please ignore my derogatory language and nonsensical statements which I say because if I can't understand them, you shouldn't be able to either.. there's no division here..
When Adyashanti was first posed that question you quoted, by someone in the audience, that person wanted to resolve the question of what to do in a certain given life situation. As if any act could represent Oneness, or be viewed on a level that was free of judgement simply because it was supposedly coming from Oneness. The only type of action that is coming from Oneness would be divine manifestion. And yet, that too would be divided because it would have to conform to natural laws, maybe not all, but enough to make it realizable by the senses.
That would be a manifestation of the Satchidananda, and even then, it is not non-dualism.
Please read this and please pay attention to the Parasiva and the Satchidananda. (from the Hawaiian monks) :)
link: http://www.himalayanacademy.com/res...s_ch-47.html
quote:
Tuesday
LESSON 324
Form and Formlessness
We must caution each and all not to think of the external mind as God, which would be a self-deception. Man's personality or individuality is not God -- neither is the ego, the intellect or the emotions. Though the unenlightened sometimes make this mistake, I believe you will readily ferret out the difference. Parasiva, the Self God, lies resident at the core of man's existence, far beyond the reach of the external phases of consciousness; yet these exist only because That exists, the timeless, causeless, spaceless God Siva beyond the mind.
The other perfection inherent in the soul of man is Satchidananda -- Being, Consciousness and Bliss. When mind force, thought force and the vrittis, or waves of the mind, are quiescent, the outer mind subsides and the mind of the soul shines forth. We share the mind of God Siva at this superconscious depth of our being. In entering this quiescence, one first encounters a clear white light within the body, but only after sufficient mastery of the mind has been attained through the disciplined and protracted practices of yoga.
Hearing the vina, the mridanga, the tambura and all the psychic sounds is the awakening of the inner body, which, if sadhana is pursued, will finally grow and stabilize, opening the mind to the constant state of Satchidananda, where the holy inner mind of God Siva and our soul are one. I hold that Satchidananda -- the light and consciousness ever permeating form, God in all things and everywhere -- is form, though refined form, to be sure. Satchidananda is pure form, pure consciousness, pure blessedness or bliss, our soul's perfection in form. Parasiva is formless, timeless, causeless, spaceless, as the perfection of our soul beyond form.
Though it is supreme consciousness, Satchidananda is not the ultimate realization, which lies beyond consciousness or mind. This differs from popular interpretations of present-day Vedanta, which makes these two perfections virtually synonymous. Modern Vedanta scholars occasionally describe Satchidananda almost as a state of the intellect, as though the perfected intellect, through knowledge, could attain such depths, as though these depths were but a philosophical premise or collection of beliefs and insights. This is what I call "simplistic Vedanta."
To understand how these two perfections differ, visualize a vast sheath of light which permeates the walls of this monastery and the countryside around us, seeping in and through all particles of matter. The light could well be called formless, penetrating, as it does, all conceivable forms, never static, always changing. Actually, it is amorphous, not formless. Taking this one step farther, suppose there were a "something" so great, so intense in vibration that it could swallow up light as well as the forms it permeates. This cannot be described, but can be called Parasiva
-- the greatest of all of God Siva's perfections to be realized. This, too, can be experienced by the yogi, in nirvikalpa samadhi. Thus, we understand Parasiva as the perfection known in nirvikalpa samadhi, and Satchidananda as the perfection experienced in savikalpa samadhi. By the word formless I do not describe that which can take any form or that which is of no definite shape and size. I mean without form altogether, beyond form, beyond the mind which conceives of form and space, for mind and consciousness, too, are form.
Whoops, there's that nirvikalpa samadhi again.. beyond the mind.
I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that Adyashanti is referring to 'acting as though you are everyone, treat everyone like you would treat yourself, that is the oneness he means. However, this in way resolves any moral dilemnas or ethical problems, because perhaps how I would want to be treated is not how someone else would want to be treated. Nor is this a moral issue. One cannot act from Oneness. Period. He would have been better telling person to act from the feeling in their heart, because that feeling never lies..
Further, why does he use the term "Oneness" which is obviously a spin off and directly related to the term non-duality? This just doesn't make any sense. His whole statement is an impossible suggestion, impossible for anyone to perform or understand, and yet he gets away with saying stuff like that and people believe it.
In the quote above, would you say that Satchidananda is the realization of Oneness or is it Parasiva? It couldn't be Satchidananda because that is not the ultimate realization. Be careful here. The Satchidananda is pure form, pure consciousness, pure blessedness or bliss, our soul's perfection in form. Is that Oneness? Is that the realization that Adyshanti is claiming to produce enlightenemnt and realize Oneness? I would say Parasiva is. So, how does one act from Parasiva? Eh?
Is Adyshanti telling everyone that they should manifest miracles from their Oneness because I think that's the only way that one can act from Oneness. Ludicrous.
quote:
It's about whether or not non-division is the experience; period.
Is there, or is there not, conflict, in experience?
As soon as it is form, it is divided. Every experience has conflict in it. If it is form, it has conflict. It has a dialectically opposed or equal and opposite reaction. Everything lives as it dies. The world of form. Even one tiny thought is a form. A form is divided by it's very nature. More nonsense.
quote:
And so, when one experiences oneself as formless awareness,
If one 'experiences formless awareness' then there is no self to experience because that stat implies that there is no more living body or mind to experience it. When you experience nirvikalpa samadhi, my version where you "die daily" like St. Paul, or the common Vedanta interpretation (even to the monks) where you can remain breathless for hours or days, you are dead. There is no more ego or self. Remember the Parasiva in the quote above?
Do you like Adyashanti because he says anything he likes and gets away with it?
I think the biggest lie that Adyashanti told was when he said that "eventually all practices don't work anymore". He said that they wear off and don't produce results. He told that to a person in the audience that inquired about why he could meditate for so long and not get any results. When I first heard that statement, I believed it at first. But then I started to realize that it was just more of Adya's BS. In one breath Adya had made the AYP practices ineffective. In one breath he cast down all the methods that others have gained true enlightenment with throughout the ages. In one breath he shattered all the knowledge and belief systems I have aquired of practices throughout my lifetime. In one breath he dismissed the power of prayer.
Then I started to think for myself, instead of playing 'sleeping mass sheep animal seeker'. I started examining his teachings carefully. They are so full of holes that now I consider his teachings a waste of time. Personally the best thing he ever did was point to Zen and Nisargadatta as viable teachings. At least those teachings are congruent and closer to truth. Maybe Adya spent too much time ala Zen, where one method is to confuse the mind to the point where it gives up, producing stillness..
Try this experiment, check out Adya's blurb about enlightenment on Youtube, then Eckhart Tolle's, then try Nithyananda and some others. See what I mean? Shouldn't truth be consistent?
I think Adya fits well into here (from the monks again):
quote:
Though it is supreme consciousness, Satchidananda is not the ultimate realization, which lies beyond consciousness or mind. This differs from popular interpretations of present-day Vedanta, which makes these two perfections virtually synonymous.
:)
TI
Truth is where you find it. |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Nov 30 2009 : 11:52:22 PM
|
Christi, Original awareness is the release of all attachments. Once that is complete, when the final remnant of indifference to or non-recognition of the Clear Light of original awareness has faded into the Clear Light of original awareness (usually during deep sleep), then all the siddhis you mentioned pour in suddenly. Simply maintaining the pure vision of the Clear Light, day and night, is sufficient for the attainment of complete omniscience, powers and skills. The path is utter simplicity itself using one's own obvious natural power of ordinary awareness. Beacons of divine light floating in the air is a terribly unskillful complex of ideas that needs to be abandoned.
Adamant Clear Light Mind |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 01 2009 04:08:49 AM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 12:02:54 AM
|
TI, Oneness is synonymous with nonduality which must be known for oneself as the twelve links of dependent origination, a sort of non-dual togetherness. Only this much elaboration is useful. Understand intentionality, action, etc., etc., from this standpoint. It's nondual, because it is one's own mind. Not in the sense of one, two, three, four. In the sense of not two. Oneness is just a term. Abandon all conceptuality about this and it is your own reflection in space.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 04:15:11 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Christi, Original awareness is the release of all attachments. Once that is complete, when the final remnant of indifference to or non-recognition of the Clear Light of original awareness has faded into the Clear Light of original awareness (usually during deep sleep), then all the siddhis you mentioned pour in suddenly. Simply maintaining the pure vision of the Clear Light, day and night, is sufficient for the attainment of complete omniscience, powers and skills. The path is utter simplicity itself using one's own obvious natural power of ordinary awareness. Beacons of divine light floating in the air is a terribly unskillful complex of ideas that needs to be abandoned.
Thanks for that ... Hilarious.  |
Edited by - Christi on Dec 01 2009 04:49:29 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 09:06:25 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
p.s.
Someone just contacted me to ask me why I found your post so funny. So just to clarify, it was because the "Beacon of divine light floating in the air" that I was refering to was a Christed being (aka an ascended master). The one thing that Christed beings are not is a "terribly unskillful complex of ideas". They are many beautiful things, but they are definately not that.
And just to mention, I don't spend a great deal of time holding on to beacons of divine light floating in the air... but I am grateful for the advice anyway.
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 10:33:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
p.s.
Someone just contacted me to ask me why I found your post so funny. So just to clarify, it was because the "Beacon of divine light floating in the air" that I was refering to was a Christed being (aka an ascended master). The one thing that Christed beings are not is a "terribly unskillful complex of ideas". They are many beautiful things, but they are definately not that.
And just to mention, I don't spend a great deal of time holding on to beacons of divine light floating in the air... but I am grateful for the advice anyway.
Christi
So what does that make you? Chopped liver? Human existence is the best. And your Christed being, Ascended Master or whatever is just your mind. Cut the dualism at the root with pure vision of the Clear Light, right here and now and ascend master. It's what you already are.
P.S. Visions of masters are a good sign of one's progress. When we come to a profound experience of emptiness, the buddhas, siddhas and dharma protectors swarm around you. What is to be avoided is the one of the four Maras, known as Godly Son, the "I am the chosen one" devil. The four Maras are extremely powerful and a sensitive meditator is easily lost in them. That's why it's better to recognize the being as one's own mind and go back to resting in the Clear Light. What I'm saying may not apply to you Venerable Christi, but this info is meant for everyone. |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 01 2009 10:58:01 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4365 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 11:25:12 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
So what does that make you? Chopped liver? Human existence is the best. And your Christed being, Ascended Master or whatever is just your mind. Cut the dualism at the root with pure vision of the Clear Light, right here and now and ascend master. It's what you already are.
I wasn't making any judgement about what is best, human existence or the existence of beings in the higher realms. I also wasn't saying that Christed beings don't exist in Universal mind. Obviously the one I met does or I wouldn't have been able to perceive him.
What I am saying is that it seems possible that when Yogani wrote: "If we do our samyama that way, in time we will become radiating beacons of divine light floating in the air.", he is talking about something more than the realization of Rigpa and Dzogchen, the true nature of Self. And, it could also be that the man (Christed being) I met, had done just that, and that is how he was able to call me up into the third heaven. After all, masters who have realized Dzogchen could not really be called "Beacons of divine light floating in the air", could they?
So we are looking here at something beyond the stage of dropping all ideas and realizing the true nature of the Self. A further stage in the dynamic of awakening for which that process is no longer necessary.
quote:
Cut the dualism at the root with pure vision of the Clear Light, right here and now and ascend master. It's what you already are.
"Christi" is enough, there is no need for any titles.
Christi
|
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 11:30:53 AM
|
Hi Christi, Realization of Dzogchen is a beginning, yes. The fruit is the Body of Light; this is the beacon of light floating in the air Wangdor Rinpoche told of his recent student from California who did just that in the past year or so.
http://kriptodanny.blogspot.com/200...ow-body.html
Another possible eventuality is rebirth as a Nirmanakaya. But this transferring is not a goal, it is a side effect. Harboring hope about the future obscures the Clear Light. The goal is right here, right now, the Clear Light. Whatever those beings are is that, unchanging, natural obvious radiance of the mind. Expecting more than that is like searching for a burglar in an empty house. The time is now to recognize the Clear Light and just relax.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 01 2009 2:39:47 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 3:56:04 PM
|
You guys need to relax and read this paragraph several times:
Jigmé Lingpa’s differentiation of the two approaches is based on the distinction, particular to the Instruction Series (man ngag sde) of the Great Perfection, between the samsaric, conceptual mind (sems), and nirvanic, non-conceptual awareness (rig pa). The meditation practices of the Instruction Series found in the Longchen Nyingtig proceed on the basis of this distinction, which comes from the earliest Instruction Series scriptures, the Seventeen Tantras.[21] Therefore it is not surprising that Jigmé Lingpa insists upon the importance of the distinction. He argues that, if the meditator attempts to stop conceptual activity without distinguishing between mind (sems) and awareness (rig pa), the result is a blank indeterminacy (lung ma bstan). In awareness, he argues, conceptualisation is neutralised in a state that is “like a crystal ball”, a simile which points to clarity and vividness, rather than indeterminacy and blankness.[22] |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Dec 01 2009 4:09:52 PM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 6:16:29 PM
|
Yes. Blank indeterminacy may be a short-lived prelude to unqualified clarity and vividness. The shift to the latter is effected by continuing self-enquiry, which shows that the blank is still a conceptualisation, beyond which there is only pure awareness, no-self=all-self, crystal clarity and vividness, nothing obscuring All-seeing-All.
chinna |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 7:27:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
You guys need to relax and read this paragraph several times:
Jigmé Lingpa’s differentiation of the two approaches is based on the distinction, particular to the Instruction Series (man ngag sde) of the Great Perfection, between the samsaric, conceptual mind (sems), and nirvanic, non-conceptual awareness (rig pa). The meditation practices of the Instruction Series found in the Longchen Nyingtig proceed on the basis of this distinction, which comes from the earliest Instruction Series scriptures, the Seventeen Tantras.[21] Therefore it is not surprising that Jigmé Lingpa insists upon the importance of the distinction. He argues that, if the meditator attempts to stop conceptual activity without distinguishing between mind (sems) and awareness (rig pa), the result is a blank indeterminacy (lung ma bstan). In awareness, he argues, conceptualisation is neutralised in a state that is “like a crystal ball”, a simile which points to clarity and vividness, rather than indeterminacy and blankness.[22]
Hearsay!
What is the point of relying on scholarly authority? Making distinctions is not important. One can be directly introduced to the Clear Light very simply. Sneeze. See the radiance? That's it. This radiance is prior to any question or inquiry. When the mind is defocused long enough, the wisdom lights or nimitta appear. Or one can utilize sunlight, moonlight, candlelight or darkness to allow the effulgence to radiate brightly. When it radiates brightly the nature of all phenomena radiating from the mind becomes obvious. When one floats a thought, it appears vividly; when defocused and viewing the Clear Light, the picture appears like it's negative photo and fades vividly, sound as an echo, sensations fade. Self liberation of all illusory appearance is the natural mode. Slowly this radiance envelopes one's world in extraordinary bliss. In this state one's past karmic debts are purified fast. This was pointed out to me during my Vajrasattva retreat, by Vajrasattva who is the holder of this lineage. I did what my guru asked me to do and prayed hard for the shortest short cut. Manjushrimitra divided the teachings up, but Prahevajra did not. There are three steps; be shown the Clear Light; gain conviction and proceed with inherent confidence. The Tibetans did not keep Uddiyana or Sanskrit words. They translated them. Let's get past what the Tibetans said and cut straight through to the Essence in clear concrete English. So cut off all elaborations about what goes when where. This is it.
Adamant |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 01 2009 7:58:53 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 8:03:45 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
Self liberation of all illusory appearance is the natural mode.
Slowly this radiance envelopes one's world in extraordinary bliss.
There are three steps:
Be shown the Clear Light.
Gain conviction.
Proceed with inherent confidence.
Cut straight through to the Essence in clear concrete English.
So cut off all elaborations about what goes when where.
This is it.
Adamant
Adamant,
I would truly like to respond to this.
However, at the moment ....... I am too busy ...........
... Applauding.
Thank You.
And the words "truly like to respond" are a figure of speech .... the only real response is this moment ... that we each and all are, now.
The thing I'm noticing most, as "experiencing here" deepens, is:
Awareness *is* the natural state; all of the agitation comes from a made-up square peg that can never fit into the round hole that is all manifestation; when the error-story-that-can-never-fit is allowed to subside ... awareness fits reality like a hand in a glove; they become One, and the None ... because they don't have to be anything ... life is just Living, Unbound.
More than anything, the feeling is one of blissful alignment, harmony .. flow .... very normal; truly natural; utterly beautiful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Dec 01 2009 8:11:03 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2009 : 8:57:15 PM
|
Coockudoodledoo! The nature of reality fills the mind when searching stops; stressing about the what and where inhibits spontaneous arising of pure pleasure.
Adamant Clear Light Mind |
Edited by - adamantclearlight on Dec 01 2009 9:11:42 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Wayne Wirs: Newly-Minted Enlightened Guy
Topic Locked
