|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 23 2009 : 9:40:57 PM
|
Hi All,
Christi and I have been having an interested dialog in this thread, about enlightened consciousness, and the various levels and identifiable qualities enlightenment may or may not involve, in experience.
That topic seems more fitting for this section .... and it had gotten somewhat far afield from the original thread .... and so, I brought it over here.
I hope it will continue to be an interesting, informative and enjoyable discussion for us all.
By way of reference, the post in that thread which contained the following quoted information, below, from Gnostic Christian Kabbalah teacher Tau Malachi, as posted by Christi can be found here.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
The enlightenment experience begins at the level of Rauch, but enlightenment and liberation proper correspond to the level of Neshamah... It is at this level that a true Messianic consciousness dawns and the Christ-self is realized. While many initiates attain the level of Rauch, relatively few attain the level of Neshamah.
Hayyah
The Hayyah is the most subtle life-force or living essence- so heavenly that it has little connection with the body and dwells mostly in other realms. It is the radiant holy breath of God that is experienced at the level of Neshamah. Yet at the level of hayyah, the holy breath is completely within God and one who experiences this presence and power experiences a conscious unification with God.
Most individuals will only gain the awareness of Hayyah in altered states. In these rare moments of peak experience, it is as though one is light in an ocean of light- the world of supernal light being experienced within and all around oneself. Quite literally one sees and experiences everything as this light-force....
While many initiates may experience something of Hayyah in peak mystical experience, the actual attainment of Hayyah is very rare. The power of the Hayyah is the power to resurrect the dead. Very few masters have walked the earth with this divine power...
Yechidah
There is an even higher level of the soul of light than Hayyah. It is called Yechidah- the holy or divine spark. It is a grade of unification beyond Hayyah of which nothing can really be said. One who attains this level is the light of all the worlds and is the way, truth and life. This is the essence of the spiritual sun- the Christos- Christ...
If Hayyah represents enlightenment proper and Yechidach is something beyond that holy attainment, then something subtle and profound is being said of enlightenment. What appears to us as a supreme or ultimate attainment is, in truth, but the beginning of a whole new level of evolution to which there is no end in sight." [Tau malachi, Gnosis of the Cosmic Christ]
I believe that the practices in AYP are designed to take someone through these four stages of transformation leading from Rauch, through Neshamah and Hayyah, to Yechidah... the unfolding of Christ consciousness and the bringing down of the divine light into the light of this world.
Yes, this is my experience.
However, "Christ-consciousness" *might* be a term that's equally problematic for some people as "enlightenment" is, for others.
And, in the other thread ... I got the impression that you interpret Christ consciousness as something that is beyond what you call unity-consciousness, and which you were saying is apparently a phase of development beyond that which Wayne Wirs and I were both referring to, in that thread.
However, as you know, I'm familiar with Tau Malachi's teachings and writings as well (and thanks very much for posting this overview, by him) ... and have spent a fair amount of time and study, in order to understand the correspondences between the various consciousness models, from the world's wisdom traditions.
The five-fold model of the Kabbalah (this one - nefesh, ruach, neshamah, hayyah and yechidah) ... equates to the five-fold yogic model (big picture; not just individual .... waking, dreaming, deep sleep, turiya and turiyatita) as well as the five-fold Kashmir Shaivism model (prthivi, prakriti, maya, shakti and shiva).
The neshamah, deep sleep and maya levels are only experienced as unconscious or veiled by individual consciousness (said because if this isn't mentioned, they might seem to be different; they're not).
Unified awareness (dissolution of subject-object-perception) truly begins at the hayyah, turiya and shakti levels.
Original awareness is experiencing of-as-at the yechidah, turiyatita and shiva levels ... and is different that the preceding level which is about awareness only, in that it includes all manifestation, in experiencing, as self.
Even though the Coke can in front of me in an object in awareness ... it, like all objects in awareness are experienced as not only appearing to self ... but actually being self ... kind of "lightly held from the inside" .... though in a way that didn't arise, and which doesn't seem to have been possible, prior to unified awareness and self dissolving into each other ... "the body is the perceptible", as the Shiva Sutras say.
And so, experiencing here is of the full range listed by these models ... and the full range which AYP helps us to realize/experience/be.
And ... I don't disagree that further unfolding is likely; there's ever-new experiencing of exactly that ... arising from this that I am .... which may make it sound a lot more lofty or marvelous that the "regular experiencing" ... right now, I'm typing words which are appearing on a computer screen ... just like hundreds of other times, here at the AYP Forum .... it's just that now .. "I'm" is a convenience of language; there's no experience here, of "I'm" in the sense that that term used to be meant.
If we closely analyze the pointers indicated by teachers like Yogani, Adyashanti and Tau Malachi ... along with others that I happen to resonate with, such as Swami Lakshmanjoo and Abhinavagupta .... we get a clear and consistent indication that knowing true nature ... enlightenment ... is real and available ..... and marvelous and divine .... and utterly normal, actual and an aspect of conscious awareness living as the experiencing of being a human, being.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Personally I find Tau Malachi in particular, and Gnostic Christianity in general, helpful for not falling into the illusion of thinking that I have arrived anywhere, even when living from/as undifferentiated awareness. I also find Tau Malachi's writings useful for keeping the process of enlightenment as a never-ending continuum in perspective, which is something that Yogani also continually points to.
Yes .... agreed on all counts.
Once again: words and common modes of expression can often be as occluding as they are revealing.
On the one hand, recognizing what you wrote above as both accurate and helpful (and I do) ... could reinforce the hesitation that many of us have, knowing that there's no one to be enlightened ... and that enlightenment as any kind of fixed level is a concept, and an illusory concept at that .... to ever use the term "enlightenment".
On the other hand ... yogic practices and inquiry ... along with genuine bhakti (desire for spiritual awakening/enlightenment) ... do facilitate a fundamental shift in consciousness/awareness .... which does completely revolutionize living experience of every moment, through dissolution of belief in the reality of egoic consciousness ... which creates living in-from-as non-dual awareness, now.
The living experience of this awareness, whatever it might best be called, is the fulfillment of the promises of all the world's wisdom traditions:
Knowing self, unitive awareness; peace which passes all understanding and freedom beyond imagination .... in short: living unbound.
And so, while enlightenment may not be the best single term for this liberation ... it's still potentially very helpful and encouraging to let people know that it is not only possible and available .... but that a few of us who have started in the same general place as almost all of us (a life of suffering, confusion and unfulfillment) ... now enjoy the living experience of freedom from limited consciousness ... which some of us are comfortable, generally and lightly, referring to as enlightenment.
And so: yes, enlightenment is real; yes, the identity-dissolution of ego/limited-mind is real, and permanent (it's not possible to un-know who and what we actually are, in reality) ..... and, as you correctly point out, "process of enlightenment as a never-ending continuum" is actual, as well.
These two aspects of enlightened awareness are two sides of the one coin of non-dual reality: being and becoming.
There's the knowing of wholeness, of undifferentiated awareness, as this that is living here now, the experiencing subject ... changeless, eternal, infinite ... which is also experiencing the perspective of human life ... as well as the relative unfolding and expansion of ever-greater consciousness and ability to uplift all, now.
Stillness and Movement .... Emptiness and Dancing .... Shiva and Shakti.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Nov 24 2009 : 01:14:52 AM
|
When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. When the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is...
/Nisargadatta
This quote came to my mind when you wrote this, Kirtanman:
quote:
Even though the Coke can in front of me in an object in awareness ... it, like all objects in awareness are experienced as not only appearing to self ... but actually being self ... kind of "lightly held from the inside" .... though in a way that didn't arise, and which doesn't seem to have been possible, prior to unified awareness and self dissolving into each other ... "the body is the perceptible", as the Shiva Sutras say.
That is/was in my experience the "I am all"-state of consciousness. It can't come without the Unity and wholeness and the drop of ego identity. I felt it as if it's consciousness discovering all that it IS of and by itself - SELF-realization. It's the discovery of the two sides of the coin - the Shiva-Shakti dance of Existence.
It's definitely possible to be longer or shorter times in that stage of consciousness. "Being the screen upon which the film moves" is being out of time and space as opposed to being absorbed and identified with being a character in the film. I can assure you it's possible to wobble in and out of that - that's what Adyashanti's "The end of your world" is all about, and thank God for that book, it brought back my sanity.
Yogani says it's not Real if it's not permanent. Adyashanti says "Heck, have you seen Truth it's the Truth and nothing but the Truth, whether it's for a second, two months or years" [my paraphrase].
Yogani's comment put me in a meta-loop where I thought that awakening to the Real was suddenly another layer of Unreal and it made me flip. If awakening and seeing that the physical reality is nothing but a dream - appearances on the screen - would be another Unreal mindgame... then it would really be confusing, no?
It's not real when it's not permanent in one sense, though: We always have to LIVE our realizations in the Now - or they become non-valid. Immediately. So while wobbling - it's not really valid. But it's still the same Reality/Truth!
I have seen and experienced that the mind is sooo subtle and quick to "own" the realization. A very good measure of how much ego sneaks in is how "superior" we may feel after having reached our Freedom. If we take on the role of the "helper" or "teacher" it's often a symptom of a sneaky ego putting itself above or beyond others. Yes, to think you can help someone is to automatically define that you are superior, strange but true.
quote:
In this desire to help another, to serve another, there is hidden pride, conceit. If you love you serve. The clamour to help is born of vanity. J Krishnamurti
I see that so often in newly realized individuals, it's really a pattern! I ended up there myself when I was on that high of realization. One of the most common tricks of the mind! See for example this post written on that high: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....D=2937#25643)
But from that "I AM ALL"-consciousness, it's clearly possible to go beyond. I started a topic on that as well a long time ago (Beyond the beyond). Most people were not interested in more than the Shiva-state of consciousness then, so I didn't get very much response, apart from Nisargadatta and Bernie. Lately, Yogani has started to write a lot about that as well, and some here on forum are sniffing on it. I'm having glimpses of it and has had from the start, but I am far too immature to stay there for any periods of time. Still - it's very well recognized - it's a state beyond both being and non-being or becoming. It's a point before the point of the Big Bang. It's the zero beyond the One - existing as Two, seing itself as itself (I am).
When on Fiji I clearly saw how people realized to different levels. Very few realized immediately all the way to That. Most realized to the "witness state" or "I am all"-state of unity. And even Bernie who has been "That" for over 30 years continued to realize deeper and deeper.
There's truly no end to this journey. |
Edited by - emc on Nov 24 2009 03:28:05 AM |
 |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4380 Posts |
Posted - Nov 24 2009 : 06:14:55 AM
|
Hi Kirtanman,
quote:
Yes, this is my experience.
However, "Christ-consciousness" *might* be a term that's equally problematic for some people as "enlightenment" is, for others.
And, in the other thread ... I got the impression that you interpret Christ consciousness as something that is beyond what you call unity-consciousness, and which you were saying is apparently a phase of development beyond that which Wayne Wirs and I were both referring to, in that thread.
Yes, that's right.
I believe that the unity consciousness stage would correspond with the upper Rauch. After the unity consciousness stage, I believe there is the development of the spiritual light body, which is referred to by Tao Malachi. I have included the whole quote below and highlighted the reference to this development mentioned under the Neshamah. It is also referred to sometimes by other teachers as the "golden body" or "golden light body".
quote:
From the Gnosis of the Cosmic Christ by Tao Malachi:
Rauch
Rauch is our spirit or intelligence... there are two distinct manifestations of Rauch. They are called the upper Rauch and the lower Rauch. The lower Rauch is the normal human intelligence which is oriented to the... external world...
The upper Rauch is oriented to the Neshamah and to the divine. As a result, it is an awareness of the ocean of spirituality, which surrounds us- awareness of the play of spiritual or cosmic forces, the metaphysical dimensions of reality, and God's holy Shekinah (presence and power) within and behind everything that transpires.
At this level we begin to get a sense of God's will for our soul- the mission of our soul. We are also able to receive the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to receive communication from the divine powers, and to experience higher states of consciousness well beyond the ordinary level.
Reaching the level of upper Rauch more and more, we find ourselves guided by the spirit and moved by the spirit. At the highest levels, we can experience unification with the Holy Spirit... which is a prophetic state of consciousness in which a person feels him or herself completely elevated and transformed.
When the level of upper Rauch is present in a person, they are rightly called a spiritual or holy person, for more than a godly soul, he or she is a Spirit-filled soul.
Neshamah
At the level of Neshamah, one experiences the radiant holy breath of God. Neshamah is the vessel that holds the spiritual power that God wants to give us... Nefesh forms a material body, but the Neshamah forms a body of light or heavenly image. This is an angelic image... the image of one's Christ self or future self. It is this divine image resembling a human being that prophets behold in the peak of their divine visions.
The enlightenment experience begins at the level of Rauch, but enlightenment and liberation proper correspond to the level of Neshamah... It is at this level that a true Messianic consciousness dawns and the Christ-self is realized. While many initiates attain the level of Rauch, relatively few attain the level of Neshamah.
Hayyah
The Hayyah is the most subtle life-force or living essence- so heavenly that it has little connection with the body and dwells mostly in other realms. It is the radiant holy breath of God that is experienced at the level of Neshamah. Yet at the level of hayyah, the holy breath is completely within God and one who experiences this presence and power experiences a conscious unification with God.
Most individuals will only gain the awareness of Hayyah in altered states. In these rare moments of peak experience, it is as though one is light in an ocean of light- the world of supernal light being experienced within and all around oneself. Quite literally one sees and experiences everything as this light-force....
While many initiates may experience something of Hayyah in peak mystical experience, the actual attainment of Hayyah is very rare. The power of the Hayyah is the power to resurrect the dead. Very few masters have walked the earth with this divine power...
Yechidah
There is an even higher level of the soul of light than Hayyah. It is called Yechidah- the holy or divine spark. It is a grade of unification beyond Hayyah of which nothing can really be said. One who attains this level is the light of all the worlds and is the way, truth and life. This is the essence of the spiritual sun- the Christos- Christ...
If Hayyah represents enlightenment proper and Yechidach is something beyond that holy attainment, then something subtle and profound is being said of enlightenment. What appears to us as a supreme or ultimate attainment is, in truth, but the beginning of a whole new level of evolution to which there is no end in sight."
The widening of consciousness to include the subtle celestial, which I mentioned in the other thread as being an aspect of the transformation to Christ consciousness, is referred to by Tao Malachi under the Hayyah stage of the transformation of the soul of light. I highlighted this also.
These are two reasons, I believe, why enlightenment is called enlightenment. It is quite literally, enlightenment. The body is illuminated from within, the world is transformed into a world of celestial light. Consciousness becomes illuminated and literally shines. Even love, in the subtle celestial planes, can be seen, shining, like a river, sparkling in the sun.
Is any of this true? There is only one way to find out.... spiritual practice.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Nov 24 2009 06:21:10 AM |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Nov 24 2009 : 09:32:28 AM
|
Hi emc,
quote:
In this desire to help another, to serve another, there is hidden pride, conceit. If you love you serve. The clamour to help is born of vanity. J Krishnamurti
I would say that this can be the case at times but certainly not always. The desire to help is not always about advice or teaching, it is also about being of service. The desire to help can be a pure love impulse with no thought of "I" in the equation. Helping could be quietly sweeping a floor out of love so nobody slips. Nobody knows or needs to know, it is just done, it happens and on to the next. Love moves of its own accord, the more we give the more we receive.
|
|
|
|
Shanti
USA
4854 Posts |
Posted - Nov 24 2009 : 10:17:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anthem11
Hi emc,
quote:
In this desire to help another, to serve another, there is hidden pride, conceit. If you love you serve. The clamour to help is born of vanity. J Krishnamurti
I would say that this can be the case at times but certainly not always. The desire to help is not always about advice or teaching, it is also about being of service. The desire to help can be a pure love impulse with no thought of "I" in the equation. Helping could be quietly sweeping a floor out of love so nobody slips. Nobody knows or needs to know, it is just done, it happens and on to the next. Love moves of its own accord, the more we give the more we receive.
But when this is done from "desire" to help, it is still ego driven. That is what Krishnamurti and many of the other enlightened masters are talking about. That is what the Geeta talks about. Doing your best but with no desire... no expectation for the outcome. That includes desire to help.
Nithyananda was once asked, "I want to bring smile on the face of needy people... "... Nithyanada said "First bring a smile on your face.. then let that smile overflow and bring smile on others face... else in the name of service you will only be imposing your ego on others". He talks about some kids who had to do some kind of social service for the day.. and when the teacher asked them what they did.. the 3 boys said "we helped an old lady cross the street".. the teacher said.. "it took 3 of you???" They replied.. "yes.. the lady did not want to cross"
When that floor is swept without any desire.. but just cleaned, then that is fine. But if it is cleaned with the intention of "hoping no one falls"... then it is driven by ego. It is not being labeled as a good deed or bad deed... it is still a case of doing from the ego.
There is nothing wrong with that BTW. But what the enlightened masters say is, after enlightenment, the deed is done just to do the deed without finding a need to do it.
If all enlightened souls just sat and meditated, that would not help. There has to be doing. But the doing happens without a desire for the outcome. I see water I mop it up.. not becasue "I don't want someone to fall", or "don't want someone else to have to do it" or "lightening the burden of another".. etc. All these are mind evaluations... and an enlightened soul will mop the floor because there is water on it... no other reason.
Here are some words from Anthony deMello on this:
http://www.soulwise.net/99adm01.htm
"Charity is really self-interest masquerading under the form of altruism. You say that it is very difficult to accept that there may be times when you are not honest to goodness really trying to be loving or trustful. Let me simplify it. Let's make it as simple as possible. Let's even make it as blunt and extreme as possible, at least to begin with. There are two types of selfishness. The first type is the one where I give myself the pleasure of pleasing myself. That's what we generally call self-centeredness. The second is when I give myself the pleasure of pleasing others. That would be a more refined kind of selfishness.
The first one is very obvious, but the second one is hidden, very hidden, and for that reason more dangerous, because we get to feel that we're really great. But maybe we're not all that great after all. You protest when I say that. That's great! You, madam, you say that, in your case, you live alone, and go to the rectory and give several hours of your time. But you also admit you're really doing it for a selfish reason - your need to be needed. And you also know you need to be needed in a way that makes you feel like you're contributing to the world a little bit. But you also claim that, because they also need you to do this, it's a two-way street.
You're almost enlightened! We've got to learn from you. That's right. She is saying, "I give something, I get something". She is right. I go out to help, I give something, I get something. That's beautiful. That's true. That's real. That isn't charity, that's enlightened self-interest. And you, sir, you point out that the gospel of Jesus is ultimately a gospel of self-interest. We achieve eternal life by our acts of charity. "Come blest of my Father, when I was hungry, you gave me to eat", and so on. You say that perfectly confirms what I've said. When we look at Jesus, you say, we see that his acts of charity were acts of ultimate self-interest, to win souls for eternal life. And you see that as the whole thrust and meaning of life the achievement of self-interest by acts of charity.
All right. But see, you are cheating a bit because you brought religion into this. It's legitimate. It's valid. But how would it be if I deal with the gospels, with the Bible, with Jesus, toward the END of this retreat. I will say this much now to complicate it even more. "I was hungry, and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink", and what do they reply? "When? When did we do it? We didn't know it". They were unconscious! I sometimes have a horrid fantasy where the king says, "I was hungry and you gave me to eat", and the people on the right side say, "That's right, Lord, we KNOW". "I wasn't talking to you", the king tells them. "It doesn't follow the script; you're not SUPPOSED to have known". Isn't that interesting?
But YOU know. You know the inner pleasure you have while doing acts of charity. Aha!!! That's right! It's the opposite of someone who says, "What's so great about what I did? I did something, I got something. I had no notion I was doing anything good. My left hand had no idea what my right hand was doing". You know, a good is never so good as when you have no awareness that you're doing good. You are never so good as when you have no consciousness that you're good. Or as the great Sufi would say, "A saint is one until he or she knows it". Unselfconscious! Unselfconscious!
Some of you object to this. You say, "Isn't the pleasure I receive in giving, isn't that eternal life right here and now"? I wouldn't know. I call pleasure, pleasure, and nothing more. For the time being, at least until we get into religion later on. But I want you to understand something right at the beginning, that religion is not - I repeat not - necessarily connected with spirituality. Please keep religion out of this for the time being.
All right, you ask, what about the soldier who falls on a grenade to keep it from hurting others? And what about the man who got into a truck full of dynamite and drove into the American camp in Beirut? How about him? "Greater love than this no one has". But the Americans don't think so. He did it deliberately. He was terrible, wasn't he? But he wouldn't think so, I assure you. He thought he was going to heaven. That's right. Just like your soldier falling on the grenade.
I'm trying to get at a picture of an action where there is not self, where you're awake and what you do is done through you. Your deed in that case becomes a happening. "Let it be done to me". I'm not excluding that. But when YOU do it, I'm searching for the selfishness. Even if it is only "I'll be remembered as a great hero", or "I'd never be able to live if I didn't do this. I'd never be able to live with the thought if I ran away". But remember, I'm not excluding the other kind of act.
I didn't say that there never is any act where there is not self. Maybe there is. We'll have to explore that. A mother saving a child - saving HER child, you say. But how come she's not saving the neighbor's child? It's the HERS. It's the soldier dying for his country. Many such deaths bother me. I ask myself, "Are they the result of brainwashing"? Martyrs bother me. I think they're often brainwashed. Muslim martyrs, Hindu martyrs, Buddhist martyrs, Christian martyrs, they are brainwashed!
They've got an idea in their heads that they must die, that death is a great thing. They feel nothing, they go right in. But not all of them, so listen to me properly. I didn't say ALL of them, but I wouldn't exclude the possibility. Lots of communists get brainwashed (you're ready to believe that). They're so brainwashed they're ready to die. "
http://www.soulwise.net/99adm03.htm
"They're not coming from love, they're coming from negative feelings. They're coming from guilt, anger, hate; from a sense of injustice or whatever. You've got to make sure of your "being" before you swing into action. You have to make sure of who you are before you act. Unfortunately, when sleeping people swing into action, they simply substitute one cruelty for another, one injustice for another. And so it goes. Meister Eckhart says, "It is not by your actions that you will be saved" (or awakened; call it by any word you want), "but by your being. It is not by what you do, but by what you are that you will be judged". What good is it to you to feed the hungry, give the thirsty to drink, or visit prisoners in jail?
Remember that sentence from Paul: "If I give my body to be burned and all my goods to feed the poor and have not love . . ". It's not your actions, it's your being that counts. Then you might swing into action. You might or might not. You can't decide that until you're awake. Unfortunately, all the emphasis is concentrated on changing the world and very little emphasis is given to waking up. When you wake up, you will know what to do or what not to do. Some mystics are very strange, you know. Like Jesus, who said something like "I wasn't sent to those people; I limit myself to what I am supposed to do right now. Later, maybe". Some mystics go silent. Mysteriously, some of them sing songs. Some of them are into service. We're never sure. They're a law unto themselves; they know exactly what is to be done. "Plunge into the heat of battle and keep your heart at the lotus feet of the Lord", as I said to you earlier."
http://www.soulwise.net/99adm04.htm
"Let me put this as forcefully as possible. There's this Jesuit friend of mine who said to me, "Anytime I see a beggar or a poor person, I cannot not give this person alms. I got that from my mother". His mother would offer a meal to any poor person who passed by. I said to him, "Joe, what you have is not a virtue; what you have is a compulsion, a good one from the point of view of the beggar, but a compulsion nonetheless". |
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Nov 24 2009 : 2:52:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shanti
But when this is done from "desire" to help, it is still ego driven. That is what Krishnamurti and many of the other enlightened masters are talking about. That is what the Geeta talks about. Doing your best but with no desire... no expectation for the outcome. That includes desire to help.
Thank you Shweta for adding this in, yes an important emphasis and distinction.
Personally, I would draw a distinction between "desire" and expectation of a particular outcome. The latter would surely lead to suffering.
Pure desire with no attachment to outcome is safe enough and when driven by love is the divine flowing through the body without attachment to the mind.
If I want to help for simply the desire to help then that is what I am referring to, no outcome attached. If however I want to help so that others will be pleased or so that I think I am a "good" person, or for some other outcome etc. rather than just wanting to help or to be of service, then there can be suffering when the outcome isn't met.
So the position I would take is to help in an open ended way, meaning open to whatever comes from that intent. If the "me" is out of the equation then good things will happen. So there is divine desire which from my perspective is driven by love.
In my recent years I have had to learn to play sport for the sheer sake of enjoyment of playing with no attachment to outcome. I still have the desire to play but no longer suffer by wanting a particular outcome. Hard to describe the subtlety of it but there is freedom when it is approached this way. The measure being how I feel at the end of the game irregardless of the outcome. |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 12:14:42 AM
|
Hi emc,
quote:
Originally posted by emc
When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. When the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is...
/Nisargadatta
This quote came to my mind when you wrote this, Kirtanman:
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Even though the Coke can in front of me in an object in awareness ... it, like all objects in awareness are experienced as not only appearing to self ... but actually being self ... kind of "lightly held from the inside" .... though in a way that didn't arise, and which doesn't seem to have been possible, prior to unified awareness and self dissolving into each other ... "the body is the perceptible", as the Shiva Sutras say.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
That is/was in my experience the "I am all"-state of consciousness. It can't come without the Unity and wholeness and the drop of ego identity. I felt it as if it's consciousness discovering all that it IS of and by itself - SELF-realization. It's the discovery of the two sides of the coin - the Shiva-Shakti dance of Existence.
It's definitely possible to be longer or shorter times in that stage of consciousness. "Being the screen upon which the film moves" is being out of time and space as opposed to being absorbed and identified with being a character in the film. I can assure you it's possible to wobble in and out of that - that's what Adyashanti's "The end of your world" is all about, and thank God for that book, it brought back my sanity.
Yes, I know (about the longer/shorter duration of this type of unitive awareness) ... and thanks for these comments, very truly; there's a deep feeling of heart and candor to your words in this post ... thank you.
It truly is difficult to describe (what I'm saying here --->) .... but I know what you mean; I've experienced what you're talking about, above .... and the experience now, is different (and not said in any sense of defending anything; I'm just attempting to convey an accurate sense of the experiencing, now, for whatever good it may do all of us .... and without calling it anything in particular ... ).
And it's funny: the one book of Adya's I haven't read is that one ... and I know at least several people here, have; maybe I'll check it out.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
Yogani says it's not Real if it's not permanent. Adyashanti says "Heck, have you seen Truth it's the Truth and nothing but the Truth, whether it's for a second, two months or years" [my paraphrase].
Both are accurate statements .... the statements just refer to two different things.
The non-permanent state is what Adya terms realization .... realizing true nature; this doesn't mean the experiencing of true nature is permanent ... just that it has been experienced.
This can be very, very disconcerting for ego-mind, because you're *so* sure you've made it ... "this is IT!" ... and especially if it lasts for more than a few moments (my first "biggie" of these was a few days .... a bit over two years ago ... and the "hangover" was freakin' *horrible*, let me tell ya!! (Limited) "Mind is a terrible thing ...."  ).
In saying "it's permanent" ... Yogani is referring to what I'm talking about here ... the experience of what some might refer to using the .... e-word .... 
Basically, the difference is:
Now, there's zero self reference .... there's zero self *to* reference; it's kind of like the bottom fell out of any kind of fixed sense of self ... and there's just openness, here; just emptiness ... yet awareness ... imbuing this form, living this life.
Qualitatively, it's quite different, for "me", anyway ... that the unity-consciousness "I" used to shift in and out of.
There was always, even very subtly, a sense of "I'm enlightened" ... which, although I didn't know it at the time ... clearly showed that I *wasn't*.
Now, there's truly no sense of a me to be enlightened or unenlightened .... but in "inviting" others to enjoy the fullness of their own true nature ... while simultaneously using, or coming close to using the words "I'm enlightened" ... I was attempting to communicate something which feels very different than any *thought* of "I'm enlightened" .... and I'm realizing that those words don't communicate the actual sense of it, at all .... which may be one of the key reasons they say you can't talk about it ("The Tao which can be spoken of is not the Tao.")
In heart, here .... none of my recent words have anything at all to do with where "I am".
Here, there's just living, freedom, enjoyment, loving ... and happily feeling a sense of intending (though without any kind of desire or attachment ... there's no one here to desire or be attached) that if I can contribute to others experiencing this too, I want to (in an easy, normal, non-demonstrative way) ... do what I can to help bring that about.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
Yogani's comment put me in a meta-loop where I thought that awakening to the Real was suddenly another layer of Unreal and it made me flip. If awakening and seeing that the physical reality is nothing but a dream - appearances on the screen - would be another Unreal mindgame... then it would really be confusing, no?
I'm not quite sure I even get what you're saying ..... so ... confusing, yes!!
(As in: I agree!)
And yeah ... I'm just kind of getting this now: it's a "reflection" thing; if limited mind is looked to for answers, at all ... which, as long as it's still present, it likely will (in my experience, it was that way) ... it creates a feedback loop .... like when a microphone squeals in that loud, high-pitched, horrible way!!
I never experienced that, but I can kind of "get" it .... my experience was more: looking to limited mind for confirmation, and either getting it ... or not .... so, I either felt "all enlightened" ... or felt like "I suck; I failed".
Bit by bit .... this started to balance out a bit, so the last few months were relatively smooth ... but there was still a bit of anxiety, or certain emotions persisting for a time, because there was that "reflective self reference".
What happened recently (roughly five weeks ago; I had to think about the time frame) .... was a lot less like reaching a mountaintop ... and a lot more like all the sand running out of the hourglass.
Slightly after that fact, it was like ... "Hey .. no sand in the hourglass; nice ..." ... but zero big-dealness about .... anything.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
It's not real when it's not permanent in one sense, though: We always have to LIVE our realizations in the Now - or they become non-valid. Immediately. So while wobbling - it's not really valid. But it's still the same Reality/Truth!
I'm not sure about validity (I'm just not sure I understand how it fits, is what I mean) ... for me/"here" ... it's like:
Vacillation (aka "wobbling") started happening less and less ... until finally there was a simultaneous stopping/opening (the last sand spilling out of the hourglass, leaving openness).
And so, there's a sense that the wobbling was due to the last vestiges of reflective self-reference on some level .... but wholeness/reality was never absent ... it just had varying degrees of being experienced consciously (or not).
The opening aspect of what happened a few weeks back created the cessation of any wobbling/wobbler ... because limited mind/limited idea of self was the sand in the hour glass.
I didn't go back and forth (any longer) from limited self to unlimited self ... I went from *that* vacillation .... to .... {no word for it} .... no sense of self ... no nonsense of self .. ... no nothin' .. or a whole lotta nothin' .... or whatever.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
I have seen and experienced that the mind is sooo subtle and quick to "own" the realization.
Ohhh yeah!! Me, too!!
Ironically, when I felt those things .... there was enough ego-mind ... that "realization" or "enlightenment" was ever mentioned (the "positive spin" would be: maybe I knew on some level, it wasn't quite real or permanent).
Now/recently ... there's no owning; zero.
And, as I've said a few times now .... the "e-word" may well be used sparingly, if at all, moving forward.
And, I truly see .... I wasn't "getting" this, until the last day or two .... that specifically per the non-expression before ... and the relative "sudden" (seemingly) expression now ..... that it could well sound like:
"Kirtanman thinks he's enlightened!"
I don't (think I'm Kirtanman; think I'm enlightened; think much at all ....) ... but my words could have sounded like that, depending upon how they were "heard".
And ... neither am I saying "I'm not enlightened ... I mis-stated that ...", etc. etc. etc.
What I am saying, is:
There's a major shift here; an experiencing, 24/7, of empty-free, bliss-filled awareness is living this life ... and this empty awareness knows itself, utterly; is home utterly .... and the loftiest yogic experiences ... multiplied by a million can't begin to touch it .... and it's utterly real.
I could care less if anyone believes me, if anyone feels it's enlightenment, or anything else about it.
It's just wonderful ... and from here, the literal, felt-sense ... is that we're all equally "it" ... some of us just aren't experiencing it consciously, yet, is all.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
A very good measure of how much ego sneaks in is how "superior" we may feel after having reached our Freedom. If we take on the role of the "helper" or "teacher" it's often a symptom of a sneaky ego putting itself above or beyond others. Yes, to think you can help someone is to automatically define that you are superior, strange but true.
Fully agreed.
Anything I've said about "inviting", or whatever ... has been a spontaneous occurrence ... not a function of mind.
In the past ... I would want to teach, help ... feel sure I was ready ... and be right on the edge of "really doing it" ... and then deeply-seated doubt would surface, and nothing would happen (and so: I get what you mean, here; I've been there).
quote:
In this desire to help another, to serve another, there is hidden pride, conceit. If you love you serve. The clamour to help is born of vanity. J Krishnamurti
quote:
Originally posted by emc
I see that so often in newly realized individuals, it's really a pattern! I ended up there myself when I was on that high of realization. One of the most common tricks of the mind! See for example this post written on that high: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....D=2937#25643)
I understand; I've "been there" .... I just didn't talk about it with reference to myself, when it was happening.
And so, now, it may seem to some that there's a dynamic of "newly realized" with Kirtanman ... and there's not anything that can be pointed to, which could differntiate it from what might have been said, from the experiencing you're describing .... and which I've experienced, too.
And so, possibly "my bad" for giving this recent shift a label; maybe it could have been pointed to in a different way ... or maybe it's best not to talk to much about it at all.
Regardless, I truly hope the dialog is helpful for us all.
And whatever it is; it doesn't involved the "lofty kind of perfection" that could never make an error; or who won't speak candidly .... it's kind of a matter of getting a rhythm of how/when to attempt to express it, is all.
There are truly no claims here; no sense at all of caring ... or even interest ... about how anything that's said is seen; there's just freedom.
Gandhi was once asked by a reporter:
"Mr. Gandhi; you've worked for the liberation of your people for over thirty years, seven days a week; you've traveled all over the world, you've been to prison several times ... don't you need a vacation??"
Gandhi smiled, and replied:
"I am always on vacation."
That's how it feels now:
"I am always on vacation."
And maybe that's all that needs to be said about it.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
But from that "I AM ALL"-consciousness, it's clearly possible to go beyond. I started a topic on that as well a long time ago (Beyond the beyond). Most people were not interested in more than the Shiva-state of consciousness then, so I didn't get very much response, apart from Nisargadatta and Bernie. Lately, Yogani has started to write a lot about that as well, and some here on forum are sniffing on it. I'm having glimpses of it and has had from the start, but I am far too immature to stay there for any periods of time. Still - it's very well recognized - it's a state beyond both being and non-being or becoming. It's a point before the point of the Big Bang. It's the zero beyond the One - existing as Two, seing itself as itself (I am).
Yes, good way to describe it.
That's why I keep saying "emptiness".
Emptiness Dances ... both as "I Am" (called Sadashiva in Kashmir Shaivism) and "All This" (called Ishvara in Kashmir Shaivism).
The former is resting in infinite subjective awareness, the latter, in infinite objective awareness ... which was the focus-moment of the Coke can illustration that you quoted.
Both of these are the beauty of Shakti ... as experienced by Shiva ... the empty-openness ... the zero to her one.
Emptiness is Shiva, form is Shakti.
(Zero actually represents "nothing" and "infinity")
The Infinite/Zero become One
The One became Two
The Two became Three
The Three became the Ten Thousand Things
~Tao Te Ching
quote:
Originally posted by emc
When on Fiji I clearly saw how people realized to different levels. Very few realized immediately all the way to That. Most realized to the "witness state" or "I am all"-state of unity. And even Bernie who has been "That" for over 30 years continued to realize deeper and deeper.
There's truly no end to this journey.
Yep; that's why we do it; and it's quite possibly the most beautiful aspect of all .... and there are so very many beautiful aspects.
The first time I talked to Adya after a satsang (way back before he was anywhere near famous; he was a "Bay Area only" teacher, then) ... we were standing in the courtyard area of the Unity Church in Palo Alto, California (the kind of "marble-ish" background you see in a lot of his videos is from that church).
I was like, "Wow; nicely done ... thank you for all the beautiful truth!"
He laughed, and said, "There's a lot of beautiful truth, isn't there?" ... and he kind of smirked to himself, and shook his head with this happy little grin I can't ever forget ... like he couldn't believe it, himself.
More than anything, that's probably the single most impactful experience I ever had, as far as my whole being feeling .... "Oh my God; I want THAT!"
He had nothing to prove; wasn't speaking to a group ... and his sincerity was infinitely beyond palpable; I got to know his wife Annie (now Mukti) a bit, too ... and they're both just the most utterly down-to-earth, authentic people I've ever had the pleasure to know, talk with and be inspired by.
That was ... maybe 2004, I'd guess.
I wanted it ... and thought I'd "made it" .... probably starting maybe a year after that, and every few months, since then.
This isn't that; this is just .... the invitation to enjoy the beautiful truth, too; there's no "making it" .... there's just reality .... and conscious experience of the full beauty of it really is available.
'Cause there's a lot of it; an infinite amount, in fact .... and we're making more .... all the time; every moment now.
Mind wants to make "it" lofty (in some cases; not saying that about anyone here, per se ... I've just experienced this; "mind here" sure did ... at least for a while) ...... when "it" is utterly normal.
Personally, I feel that Adyashanti showcases this beautifully, as does Mukti, as does Yogani, as does Tau Malachi ... and I feel very grateful that there are "normal enlightened people" to help us see that all the "over mythologizing" of it can cause it to be missed ....... because it is real; it is what we all really are .... the awareness writing these words .... the awareness reading them ........ same; truly ..... same.
_/\_ |
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 25 2009 12:20:27 AM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 05:10:09 AM
|
THAT is not about states of consciousness. To be interested in 'levels of enlightenment' is to be interested in states of consciousness. If THAT is seen, momentarily, identification reverts from states of consciousness to THAT. This sudden reversion is what seeing THAT, realising one's true Self, is. Whatever anyone 'else' may make of the apparent states of consciousness of the apparently continuing physical presence, it is no longer of any interest to THAT which one is. To remain interested in states of consciousness, and in their 'progress', informs us that what we have seen is not THAT but a level of understanding of THAT, a representation of THAT. Which is none the worse for that. But is not THAT.
There are many teachers, indeed most, who will teach us to aim at or settle for less than THAT. Nisargadatta is not one of them. It seems, from what EMC says, that neither is Yogani.
chinna |
Edited by - chinna on Nov 25 2009 05:55:31 AM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 11:13:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
To remain interested in states of consciousness, and in their 'progress', informs us that what we have seen is not THAT but a level of understanding of THAT, a representation of THAT. Which is none the worse for that. But is not THAT.
Hi Chinna,
Very valuable comment ... thank you.
However, there's a distinction regarding "interest in levels of consciousness", that I'm pretty sure you'll understand, that I'd like to point out .... and, as always ... I invite your comments, and anyone's else's.
As I think everyone here knows, unless you're reading this as someone brand new to the AYP Forum ... I resonate strongly with the teachings of the "simply non-dual" (or, perhaps more clearly: non-dual simplicity), as articulated by teachers such as Yogani, Adyashanti, Eckhart Tolle, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and Ramana Maharshi.
Their teachings are my own experience, as well ... and I've been expressing these experiences in my own .... rather extensive .... style, lately (here at the AYP Forum).
In connection with these expressions of my experience, a few people started commenting and asking questions in another thread ... and it seemed pertinent to bring that discussion into this new thread.
Experience here is of infinite empty awareness; there is no interest in "levels of consciousness" or enlightenment, personally.
For one, there's not really a "personally" any longer, in the way mind thinks of that term, or in the way it was experienced here, until relatively recent (a few weeks back, per my post to emc).
For two, (<- aka one, under an assumed name ...) the empty awareness is utterly complete, open ... and doesn't feel a vacillation of states or levels, in the way it used to.
There's freedom to focus, sure ... and in some cases, body-mind is experienced with attention/awareness far-forward out into objectivity ... physical-mental-only for a moment or two .... but this is akin to hearing a sudden sound, or seeing a sudden flash of light .... attention goes there for a moment ... willingly ... but no longer remains there, nor does it remain at the mind-form (dream) level ... endlessly thinking and seeking and hoping and should-ing all over itself.
The primary interest here, in talking about levels and models, is being able to clearly articulate them ... in ways that are helpful to all.
I'm not sure how possible that even is ... but it feels worth discussing.
There are some very interesting correspondences between (for instance) the Sophian Gnosticism teachings that Christi posted about, and Kashmir Shaivism, which I reference often ... and the yogic model of Patanjali, and the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara, and the Kabbalah, and so on.
There's also the "open question/comment" that Christi raised, concerning his beliefs about further development after (quote-unquote) enlightenment ... which seems at least worth discussing, on a few levels.
And so: I agree with you, Chinna: if I felt a sense of "wanted to learn about levels of consciousness so that I can understand them better as it might relate to my own experience" .... yes, that would indicate THAT (aka THIS ) is not what's expressing here.
However, to say that any discussion of THAT (and possible, relative levels, models, etc.) can't be THAT .... is to misunderstand THAT, which can, and does, express itself infinitely, always now.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 3:26:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
I invite your comments, and anyone's else's.
The only accurate thing that can be said about states of consciousness is that they are a reflection of THAT, but are not THAT. No particular state of consciousness is more closely connected with THAT than any other. It's the whole shebang that has to be seen through, levels and all, and most of all the one who compares them, who sees difference and evaluates.
chinna |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 4:36:48 PM
|
Anthem, I think you got a good answer to your first post by Shanti. That's how I mean. The realization around "helping" really hit me when reading Byron Katie's "I need your love - is that true?". The superiority is built into the word 'help' by default. It implies that I know/can something that you don't/can't, so I am a little bit more than you, so I am in a position to assist you since you lack something I have. And if the help is not asked for, but imposed on others, it also implies that I actually also know whats best for you! I have already decided that you need help, whether you understand it yet or not. Your example of "Helping could be quietly sweeping a floor out of love so nobody slips." is a perfect example. Can you absolutely know it's true? What if a slip would bring someone into a huge awakening by the intense pain? You might have prevented that from happening by imposing an interpretation that it's "helpful" to sweep the floor.
The particular type of help I'm referring to in my post is not about sweeping floors, though, but that increadibly strong sense of wanting to "help" others SEE and BE what I AM when newly realized. It's probably a default component of Consciousness to have an agenda to wake up everywhere, in every being, and it bursts out in many after realization. You just want everybody to be just as free as you are (as consciousness aka stillness). That's when the "helping" attitude can creep in and very, very easily be taken over by egoic structures still functioning in the system. We have talked many times about how ego's never give up as long as there's a body-mind, and that it's very wise to never think you are "ariven" and can stop inquiry. Particularly not when the outer world is giving signals that there's probably something to be looked at.
Kirtanman,
Your post is truly interesting in many ways, and I am sure it also truly is helpful for many to read your posts. I'm not thinking mainly of you when I write my posts, but I'm glad it has you reflecting over your own realization.
I felt like I wanted to compose an "I have realized!" check list after reading your post:
1) There's no longer a sense of "I" either as the egoic personality or as anything (zero self-reference). The person is seen as absolutely FAKE. There was never a "me" to start with. Egoic identity dissolves totally. Possibly also the sense of I AM can go.
2) The mind is no longer a problem, neither good or bad, nothing to fight, since it has lost all its power. Believing your mind is seen as insane.
3) It's absolutely impossible to describe the realization with words. Words can only be pointers, at most. The realized always says "I can't describe it - you have to have a direct experience of it yourself! The mind CANNOT figure out, grasp or imagine what it's like"
4) There is a strong sense of freedom, love, peace, easiness, lightness. Everything is as it should be.
5) There's a KNOWING of Home. I am home.
6) That Home is a Nothingness - and yet an everythingness. It's an emptiness, and yet it is that in Form - simultaneously! The duality is a very enjoyable miracle. There's often a falling in love with Form.
7) It's a definite ability to discriminate between the REAL and UNREAL. REALITY is so ridiculously self-evident - there's only the Real that is interesting. Not diminishing the unreal - it's just SEEN as unreal as compared to REALITY. (Often brings buddha-laughters when realizing how seriously we take the Unreal while living in the mind, believing the mind-world to be reality - before we realize what's truly Real - before we realize Truth.)
8) There's a total absorption in the NOW. That's the only place we can find Reality. Everything is sensed to unfold effortlessly and spontaneously in the Now.
The list can probably be made longer, but it covers basically the ingredients of an awakening to Truth, the end of suffering, the end of "your world" as it has been perceived before.
You describe that the wobbling you had before was in and out of some other type of unity-place than the described in the checklist above. In your previous "I'm enlightened"-space where there still was a great sense of "I" who had made it or "gotten it", it was a totally different thing than where you are now. There has been a shift which is more profound somehow, it seems.
Now, honestly, Kirtanman. You repeat that you know what I'm experiencing - you've "been there"... How can you know for sure that the place you are describing (the one you have shifted to now) is not what I wobble in and out from?
You see, I can put a "check" behind every point in that list. To me, that is the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the Truth, just as Adyashanti says. Once seen/been, it cannot be erased.
Can you imagine someone coming and telling you "no, no, what you call REALITY now, is not the REAL at all!" Now, that's what I mean by being really, really freaked. What if what you now sense as REAL and is absolutely sure is REAL is just another illusion, just as fake as you now see your personal identity was? That's where I ended up until Adyashanti saved me.
Perhaps there's another point on the list:
9) Being so absorbed in one's own BEING THAT, and wish to communicate THAT, that there is very little listening happening. Often accompanied by a sense that nobody else, particularly not those obviously still influenced by the gravity of mind, can possibly KNOW what it's like to be realized. (That's when the newly realized person often goes back to speak about # 3.)
I have discovered that Facebook is a great arena for these newly realized persons to just flow over and splash what's left of their ego structures all over the place. The internet gives great opportunities (to help or teach)!
And as a last word - None of this is wrong or "shouldn't be" the way it is! It is what it is. We are all on the journey and we learn from eachother all the time. We have had numerous discussions on this forum about realized teachers and gurus - whether they have their ego's left or not, if it's possible to judge or not etc etc... and it really doesn't matter, does it? 
My point with these posts is that I'm certain we realize deeper and deeper, and that we are wise to continue to inquire even though we think we are without any type of self-reference. We are prone to have blind spots! And if we are truly curious about our blind spots, we ought to make sure we listen to our daily mirrors around us if we are interested in continuously discovering how egostructures work in the body-mind system. As the realizations go deeper, so does the ego structures advance! I even think Adyashanti mentions that the journey really begins AFTER realization! That's when the ego starts working at it's best! Even Yogani has people checking his books so mind junk will be taken away before publishing. That's a wise attitude to me! |
Edited by - emc on Nov 25 2009 4:45:39 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 6:10:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
I invite your comments, and anyone's else's.
The only accurate thing that can be said about states of consciousness is that they are a reflection of THAT, but are not THAT. No particular state of consciousness is more closely connected with THAT than any other. It's the whole shebang that has to be seen through, levels and all, and most of all the one who compares them, who sees difference and evaluates.
chinna
Hi Chinna & All,
In my experiencing, this is true in the absolute sense ... but not in the relative.
Relatively speaking, there's emanation from emptiness which manifests as increasingly distinct, and which completes in perception of physical/objective, and then releases/returns to the unmanifest.
Kabbalah calls it the "four worlds" ... emanation, creation, formation, and action.
Knowing and experiencing this has been helpful to me in getting what was actually happening from the standpoint of feeling like a person who thought he needed to become enlightened ... rather than allowing attention to continue to loop in delusion.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4380 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 6:32:01 PM
|
Hi all,
Here is an interesting paragraph from lesson 274 where Yogani discusses the neurobiology involved in the Christ consciousness stage:
"By the way, neuro-biologically speaking, the jivan mukti/christ stage corresponds with the union of inner silence and ecstatic conductivity evolving up from everywhere in the body, reaching maturity in the head, and then migrating back down into the heart where the spiritual rebirth occurs. So the heart is where we will end up with all this. The heart is the final home of our enlightenment in this body, with the neuro-biology of the whole body supporting that. There is much to do in setting the stage for this final outcome, and that is what AYP is about." [Yogani]
http://www.aypsite.org/274.html
This certainly corresponds with my meeting with a Christed being, when the energy flowing from his heart as love was strong enough to force me to the ground (literally).
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Nov 25 2009 6:58:47 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 7:53:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by emc
Can you imagine someone coming and telling you "no, no, what you call REALITY now, is not the REAL at all!" Now, that's what I mean by being really, really freaked.
What if what you now sense as REAL and is absolutely sure is REAL is just another illusion, just as fake as you now see your personal identity was? That's where I ended up until Adyashanti saved me.
I'm still not quite "getting" what you're saying here .... and I'd genuinely like to understand what you're saying.
I'm not sure I understand .... but it sounds like you're saying:
You could check off every item on your checklist ... but then, someone (your own mind, or someone else ... I'm not sure if you've clarified which) ... somehow convinced your mind that the "realized" reality *could* be as fake as the "ego-story" reality ... and your mind freaked out, thinking "Oh My God, what if that's true?!"
And I'm not sure exactly what the ramifications were for you, other than it was presumably quite awful to experience ... with the general sense being (guessing here) ... "how can I ever actually know what's real??"
This was compounded by the fact that you believed that enlightenment/realization was "one way" ... and so, if you could "fall back out of it" .... which you did ..... that was some pretty strong evidence that whoever convinced you of the possible unreality of both conditions ("enlightened" and "unenlightened", or "realized" and "unrealized", or whatever you want to call it ..... might be right.
However, something in "End Of Your World" (the book by Adyashanti) .... possibly just the general teaching that "phasing in and out of" realization/experience of self can and does happen .... helped you to believe you're *not* stuck in an ever-cycling unreality, after all ... and you were (your phrasing) restored to sanity.
Does that sound about right?
If so, I'd say that while on one level there may have been zero self-reference, there wasn't zero mind-reference .... which would have made all the difference, it seems.
My dissolution of mind (my term; who knows if it's "actually that"?) just *happened* ... it wasn't volitional.
For me, it was like this:
Inner silence became samadhi.
Samadhi became thoughtless awareness in daily life.
Thoughtless awareness in daily life (including non-attachment to thoughts; I've never had "no thinking at all").
I developed the habit of "maintaining" thoughtless awareness, which took effort at first, and got easier and easier over time (I started the practice in early 2008, if I recall correctly).
I'd still cycle out of it, though ... and every so often, still experience a fair amount of stress, ego and/or "distressful thinking".
Even knowing it wasn't me (I'm not who I think I am) ... it seemed to be a systemic cycling, regardless.
I even had a couple of major "emotional meltdown" kind of experiences ... which were purification, yes .... but also caused, aided and abetted ... by those evil twins ... memory and imagination (the last one of these was maybe 7 or 8 months ago, and lasted for a few hours, and "really intensely" for far less than than).
Then, I developed two habits, which helped the rest of the "clean-up", so to speak:
1. Sustaining Awareness
These body-minds (in "modern culture") are SO conditioned to *think* ... and every system teaches that "thoughtless awareness" is divine consciousness ... and that the only difference between the enlightened and the unenlightened, is that the enlightened live from effortless thoughtless awareness ... while the unenlightened live in the dream of conditioned thinking.
And so, I noticed even in samadhi, thoughts still arose ... and while they weren't attached to ... they were still often paid attention to.
And so, I guess I did kind of "inverted samyama" ... and learned dharana (focusing awareness, not letting it wander) and dhyana (sustaining awareness) *from* samadhi (the eight limbs of yoga aren't in "any order" ... but I always kind of thought of them that way).
2. Using Suffering as a Reminder to Return to Awareness
It was like:
Stress? Return to awareness.
Anxiety? Return to awareness.
Fear? Return to awareness.
Between these two practices ... awareness became both easier and easier .... and more natural and more natural.
And ... I experienced that it's impossible to suffer without thinking .... and it's impossible to suffer, while aware; the two are mutually exclusive.
So *then* ... I was *really* motivated to be done with this "suffering and delusion crap" .... but the cycling continued ... and I kept practicing (all practices; meditation, spinal breathing, samyama ... and including these two).
And ... I finally had the experience of the "sand running out of the hourglass" ... I'm sure you all know how that looks ...... it's slow, it's slow ... it speeds up .... and then, right near the end ... it really speeds up ... and before you know it ........ ahhh ..... no more sand!!
And so .... now .... all I can tell you (emc) ... is there's not even the ability to be concerned about whether this (current condition) is "it", or not.
*Could* it be temporary?
Sure; anything's possible.
Does it feel temporary?
It doesn't feel "anything", really; there's truly no comparison or referencing.
It's like: before yoga, all through my life ... my sense of "me" was a given ... I didn't question who "I" was ... I just lived my life... sometimes happy, sometimes unhappy; never completely secure (it was that whole "dream of partiality thing").
Now, when you say "how do you know it's permanent?"
Feels the same way that "How do you know you're you?" would have sounded a few years back .... it just kind of doesn't compute.
I just got (how to possibly express it) .... this ... experiencing now ... does not feel like a state.
It's like: "Is what permanent? What are you talking about?", in terms of the "vibe" of it .... there's no something or someone to be permanent or not permanent .... and I'm not saying this is an "and so, there's NO ego ...", etc. etc. .... I'm just trying to describe how it feels ...... and the short answer is: "it doesn't".
Previous realization experiences did feel like a state on some level .... "I'm feeling like {x,y,z}" .... "finally at peace", "clear awareness", "infinite", blah, blah, blah.
Now ... none of that; just .... openness, emptiness.
Before ... what I (fairly recently, out of my whole life) learned was a smokescreen of thinking and conditioned memory .... but what *felt* like me for my whole life .... shifted into "Ah, I'm awareness!!" ... and there was referencing it, noticing it ... and so, either "Kirtanman the guy" or "Kirtanman the infinite awareness" was what was living any given moment.
Now, it's like "emptiness is living this" ... whatever the experience is ... but the emptiness is a (subtle yet infinite) "little step back" from *all* experiencing.
It's not about the quality, or the content of the experience ... feeling like a person, feeling like infinite awareness ... emptiness experiences both, but is not affected or disturbed by any experience ... I am, in a sense ... the very experiencing of the experiences ... but am also independent of them.
It really is almost impossible to describe ... it's like: instead of a "someone" ... or even "thinking about" things .... there's just space.
Life is actually much more normal than one might (literally) think, considering that; however ... the immersion in living ... without all that energy tied up and looping in reflective self reference ..... life is .... good; really good.
And suffering only happens when something untrue is believed in.
And I experience this as very, very good news ... and even better reality .... and happily intend that we all come to the experiencing of this.
Perhaps there's another point on the list:
quote:
Originally posted by emc
9) Being so absorbed in one's own BEING THAT, and wish to communicate THAT, that there is very little listening happening. Often accompanied by a sense that nobody else, particularly not those obviously still influenced by the gravity of mind, can possibly KNOW what it's like to be realized. (That's when the newly realized person often goes back to speak about # 3.)
I'm not quite sure I "get" this one; again, I'd like to.
Speaking for myself (and not because I think you "mean" me) ... there's no particular sense of needing to talk about this ... surprisingly the opposite, based on what mind might have expected.
90%+ of all referencing here (at AYP), about any condition I'm in ... has been because of dialog that has been in response to questions and comments (not yours, emc ... I'm referring to those that begin with "Kirtanman, you ....", and similar phrasing).
I started saying "enlightenment is real" ... and "inviting" ... before I ever really referenced anything about "what happened here" ... and nobody ever said anything.
As soon as I basically included "I" and "enlightened" in the same sentence (even with all the caveats) ... there were all these questions and comments.
The answering has happened ... and the extensive answering feels about finished ("answering" is fine; I do my best; "endlessly repeating" ... not so much. )
And again .... not with respect to anything you've said, emc ... I'm mostly talking about the Wayne Wirs thread, when I say this.
Good learning experience for us all, hopefully.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
I have discovered that Facebook is a great arena for these newly realized persons to just flow over and splash what's left of their ego structures all over the place. The internet gives great opportunities (to help or teach)!
I presume they have an app for that??
(They do for everything else ....!! )
Seriously though: I've never thought in terms of people who are "newly realized" "splashing ego structures" around on Facebook (or anywhere else, for that matter) ... I'm not on Facebook a lot ... but I experience it more as "a way to keep in touch with family", mostly.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
And as a last word - None of this is wrong or "shouldn't be" the way it is! It is what it is. We are all on the journey and we learn from eachother all the time. We have had numerous discussions on this forum about realized teachers and gurus - whether they have their ego's left or not, if it's possible to judge or not etc etc... and it really doesn't matter, does it?
I absolute agree with this.
This is the AYP Support Forum ... not the AYP Let's See If We Can Judge Who's Enlightened or Not Forum.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
My point with these posts is that I'm certain we realize deeper and deeper, and that we are wise to continue to inquire even though we think we are without any type of self-reference.
I agree ... if there's thinking/self-reference in the first place ... and especially if there's suffering.
"Blind spots = bad".
However, it's certainly not ideal to "manufacture" thinking or self-reference, if it isn't arising in the first place.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
quote:
Originally posted by emc
We are prone to have blind spots! And if we are truly curious about our blind spots, we ought to make sure we listen to our daily mirrors around us if we are interested in continuously discovering how egostructures work in the body-mind system. As the realizations go deeper, so does the ego structures advance!
Well, yes ... per my two "awareness practices" mentioned above .... suffering is a signal to inquire.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
I even think Adyashanti mentions that the journey really begins AFTER realization! That's when the ego starts working at it's best!
Well, it can; a lot of times, it's legacy conditioning/purification .... but we've all seen "spiritual egos" at work, for sure.
And I take "realization" in the same way Adyashanti does:
Initial experience of self/emptiness/union ... regardless of duration.
I had minor glimpses of this a few times ... and then the first "biggie" in mid-2007; I'd call that "Realization" .... and yes, ego was a big part of it, even though ego was sure it wasn't.
Basically, the experience of Self was real ... but ego immediately "locked down" around the experience, evaluating ... determining the ramifications ... considering Sanskrit names .... you know ... "the usual" .....
What I'm referring to in current experience is what seems to happen *after* that realization cycle completes (the back-and-forth, up-and-down, etc.).
And that's not said as "realizeder-than-thou", to anyone, in any way ..... it's trying to explain, for the accurate map we're all mutually creating, here.
Those experiences were all about a "something" that happened.
Currently, it's the result of an "absence of something" ... including the thought and ego-structures which vacillated between a position of tyranny and credibility.
Now, reliance on them and belief in them is simply gone.
Am I saying "there are no ego structures here" ---- no; I'm saying "empty awareness is not itself an ego structure, and the ongoing experience is of empty awareness".
The "me-sense" (as in "I need to augment dinner .... with more dinner ... and hey, I like this song! .... and what-not) .... are here .... but they go with the body-mind; they happen ..... but identity is not derived from them, and they're not the arbiter of quality of experience, or the real or unreal, in any way.
Whatever happened a few weeks back ... the thoughts and feelings related to ego-mind just don't arise like they used to.
However, it's not like they've been replaced with something more "enlightened" ..... they basically just weren't replaced; there's space where they used to be; that's all.
As in: there's really no *evaluation* of myself as realized or enlightened .... it's more that it seemed to be a reasonable description, especially per AYP (as in: I don't think Yogani really says anything different about enlightenment that I do.)
For some strange reason, I had a sense:
Hey, if I let other people know it's possible .... people will feel like:
"Awesome ... so AYP *does* work; I *can* get enlightened!" (<-- Or, more accurately ... get past *all* the crazy me-stories, including the enlightenment-related ones ....) .... but ... as some may have noticed .... the general response .... or, at least the more vocal ones ... have not been like that (((shrug))).
I really just am here to help, if possible .... not in a "big deal" way; just in a "like always" way.
quote:
Originally posted by emc
Even Yogani has people checking his books so mind junk will be taken away before publishing. That's a wise attitude to me!
My guess would have been "typos" ("will be taken away before publishing") - "who knew?" (i.e. I didn't know Yogani had said this ... but not a bad practice, either way, I suppose).
Wow.
I wonder ....
.... could there be ... mind junk ... in *my* writing??
**HM** ......!!
And again: thanks, emc ... I really do enjoy your comments and your insights ... and some of these in your last post are major ... and potentially very useful for a lot of AYPers and readers of this forum.
And, I hope you don't mind a bit of flippancy in my humor, at times ... it's just in fun ... and based on your own humor, the presumption is that you'll get where I'm coming from ... which is always warm-heartedly, even when in "joking mode".
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 25 2009 10:35:16 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 8:09:34 PM
|
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi all,
Here is an interesting paragraph from lesson 274 where Yogani discusses the neurobiology involved in the Christ consciousness stage:
"By the way, neuro-biologically speaking, the jivan mukti/christ stage corresponds with the union of inner silence and ecstatic conductivity evolving up from everywhere in the body, reaching maturity in the head, and then migrating back down into the heart where the spiritual rebirth occurs. So the heart is where we will end up with all this. The heart is the final home of our enlightenment in this body, with the neuro-biology of the whole body supporting that. There is much to do in setting the stage for this final outcome, and that is what AYP is about." [Yogani]
http://www.aypsite.org/274.html
This certainly corresponds with my meeting with a Christed being, when the energy flowing from his heart as love was strong enough to force me to the ground (literally).
Christi
Hi Christi,
Thanks for this!
This is absolutely what is happening here, "chakrically speaking".
After crown opened ... I didn't focus much on energy centers (I still did/do spinal breathing .... but experienced awareness alone, as opposed to energy centers).
However, since the recent "emptying/opening" experience .... there has been a sense of attention centering in, and emanating from the heart ... in a manner very similar to (and helped by) the practice Shanti posted about, recently.
And so, there's sort of a feeling of doing fine without the "map" .... yet, the map still holds true.
And "awareness centering in the heart" is a very fundamental teaching in several systems.
It's taught in Kabbalah (Matisyahu has a line in a song that says "your feelings in your chest // and your head at rest").
It's taught in Kashmir Shaivism (the Heart is the place of the Union of Bhairava and Bhairavi, the highest forms of Shiva and Shakti -- representing the union of awareness and form).
As I've mentioned before, Heart in Sanskrit is: Hridayam.
Hrid = Center.
Ayam = This.
Hridayam = Center of This .... where awareness emanates/creates.
There's a sense of shining from the heart, now .... but it's a shining of space ... not energy ... and it's loving ... not emotionally ... not over-the-top spiritually; just actually.
I think Sophian Gnosticism teaches of this, too.
On the one hand, awareness isn't center in the body-mind, and "heart"-related teaches are symbolic and metaphorical.
On the other hand, there's an actual experiencing, here .... that's just actual ... and seems to be connected with the recent "emptying".
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Tibetan_Ice
Canada
758 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 9:19:15 PM
|
Hi emc :)
quote:
Originally posted by emc
I can assure you it's possible to wobble in and out of that - that's what Adyashanti's "The end of your world" is all about, and thank God for that book, it brought back my sanity.
Now that you've read that book, would you say that the void is similar to what Adyashanti describes during his awakening as that vast emptiness where the little stars shine, where his simultaneous lives were occuring?
:)
TI |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Nov 25 2009 : 11:58:57 PM
|
| How many words does it take to point to the mind's real nature? Zero. |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2009 : 11:14:18 AM
|
Kirtanman, I enjoy trying to reach an understanding here! Thanks for your responses.
quote:
You could check off every item on your checklist ... but then, someone (your own mind, or someone else ... I'm not sure if you've clarified which) ... somehow convinced your mind that the "realized" reality *could* be as fake as the "ego-story" reality ... and your mind freaked out, thinking "Oh My God, what if that's true?!"
Oki, I'll try to clarify the best I can. First, wobbling means very simply oscillating between believing our thoughts (emotions etc) and not believing our thoughts (emotions etc). When believeing in thoughts we get the whole enchilada with being a personal identity/aka prisoner of the mind"/aka suffering etc, let's call it point A. When we are not believing our thoughts we are free of the personal identity and we get the whole enchilada listed above in the "I am realized"-list, let's call it point B. I think we pretty much have the same knowing of what the points represent. So when in point B - there's no problem whatsoever. It's exactly what you are describing as being your present experience/living/knowing/being. It is also my experience/living/knowing/being - when in point B! It is experienced as THE REAL. There is no other reality, right? So we all end up in the same place there. It's only One there - or Noone there... whatever...
Then when there's a contraction back into point A it's absolutely ridiculous! We have seen it's nothing to contract back into and there's noone there to contract and there's no real contraction - it's on every level absurd to again believe in thoughts that were so fully, totally and utterly SEEN as not real - yet it happens! The gravity of point A is too strong and pulls us back - if we're not lucky. So then, when in point A again - there's a lot of knowing about point B, right? The REAL has been tasted and known in direct experience. Now the mind "owns" the realization as "its own" "I was in point B" - yet there's a basic deep knowing the "I" is fake...
Then a teacher comes and says: "what you refer to as point B, or all the things you experienced and can describe in the checklist above, is not Real. You only thought it was real". Then the mind flips - being in point A. Then another teacher comes and says "Oh, some teachers says point B is not Real as long as you are oscillating. But I assure you - you will never end up anywhere else but in point B. The Real is the Real no matter if you just taste it, get a glimpse of it or stay there permanently. Point B is point B. Period." That felt very good to a confused mind in point A. When in point B - all of this discussion about oscillating and points A and B is ridiculous, and not interesting. Thank God Adyashanti still thinks it's interesting and writes books about it.
quote:
And I'm not sure exactly what the ramifications were for you, other than it was presumably quite awful to experience ... with the general sense being (guessing here) ... "how can I ever actually know what's real??"
It was a terribly confusing situation, cause I usually find Yogani's words to be very accurate by own experience. The question was not "how can I ever actually know what's real" - the question was rather "if I can't trust the inner guru/the stillness as it is known here/ then what can I trust on this journey?" Yogani said "have faith". My faith died. And hell broke loose in my life on all levels.
quote:
This was compounded by the fact that you believed that enlightenment/realization was "one way" ... and so, if you could "fall back out of it" .... which you did ..... that was some pretty strong evidence that whoever convinced you of the possible unreality of both conditions ("enlightened" and "unenlightened", or "realized" and "unrealized", or whatever you want to call it ..... might be right.
Nope. Far from it, since I've been dancing in and out for so long I have never thought it's a "one way". See above. It was all about faith and trust in point B being point B and not another mind game.
quote:
However, something in "End Of Your World" (the book by Adyashanti) .... possibly just the general teaching that "phasing in and out of" realization/experience of self can and does happen .... helped you to believe you're *not* stuck in an ever-cycling unreality, after all ... and you were (your phrasing) restored to sanity.
Does that sound about right?
After all the corrections - yes, that's about right except that it was never a question about the dancing per se! What Adyashanti brought was the firm confirmation: Truth is truth. Always. When known it's known and you know when you know it. Always. I regained trust in my inner guru - that which Yogani ironically points to all the time!!!
The two habits you suggest are what I'm into now as well, just that for some reason, the motivation to go there is very weak at the moment. I'm just resting with that. I know it will change, and I know that's the "effort" demanded if I want to have the sand go, the way you have! We have to practice that awareness, the way you describe.
quote:
Now, when you say "how do you know it's permanent?"
Do I say that? I have never asked you that to my knowing?
quote:
Now, it's like "emptiness is living this" ... whatever the experience is ... but the emptiness is a (subtle yet infinite) "little step back" from *all* experiencing.It's not about the quality, or the content of the experience ... feeling like a person, feeling like infinite awareness ... emptiness experiences both, but is not affected or disturbed by any experience ... I am, in a sense ... the very experiencing of the experiences ... but am also independent of them.
It really is almost impossible to describe ... it's like: instead of a "someone" ... or even "thinking about" things .... there's just space.
Great description of point B! Ask me when in point B and the same description will come out of my mouth, and anyone's mouth that has seen Truth!
To me, it seems like you wobbled in another way than I wobble. I don't wobble to an "I'm enlightened"-state or any state with a "someone being there to have a sense - I've got it!". I wobble to what you describe (point B). That's what I'm trying to get through here. I wobble between "I'm a seeker" and "There is just emptiness dancing".
And now I'm boiling with kundalini having written this, so I have to go.
You're great, Kirtanman, sharing your experiences. Thank you! |
Edited by - emc on Nov 26 2009 11:57:38 AM |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2009 : 3:56:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by emc
My point with these posts is that I'm certain we realize deeper and deeper, and that we are wise to continue to inquire even though we think we are without any type of self-reference.
quote:
Kirtanman: I agree ... if there's thinking/self-reference in the first place ... and especially if there's suffering. ...suffering is a signal to inquire.
Yes, true. And not only one's own suffering, but others as well!
Something interesting just happened here in Stockholm a while ago. One of those quite newly realized teachers who travel the world, holding satsangs, got into a rather nasty conflict with the people arranging his satsangs. They accused him of being ego-driven and not truly realized. (I don't know how he responded, I only heard the upset people.) After a while, the upset people even contacted the teachers former master and asked him for help to reach the teacher and make him listen to their complaints. The answer from the master to the teacher was spread (the original email) and read something like:
"Such upsetness and negativity never comes from nothing. If these people are so upset about your behaviour, then it might be time for you to do some inquiry again." And he actually recommended him to do some Byron Katie's The Work!
So this passage is quite interesting (if it's not a part where you are joking):
quote:
For some strange reason, I had a sense:
Hey, if I let other people know it's possible .... people will feel like:
"Awesome ... so AYP *does* work; I *can* get enlightened!" (<-- Or, more accurately ... get past *all* the crazy me-stories, including the enlightenment-related ones ....) .... but ... as some may have noticed .... the general response .... or, at least the more vocal ones ... have not been like that (((shrug))).
I really just am here to help, if possible .... not in a "big deal" way; just in a "like always" way.
In this at least I see underlying assumptions and expectation that was not being fulfilled the wanted way - others are giving you feed-back of a totally different kind. Why is that? What does that tell you? And you just want to help... Hm. Could be a subject for inquiry, in my world anyway.
This is a quote from Yogani around the question "Does Truth ever create negativity?":
quote:
Inner silence has inherent within it a morally self-regulating quality. The same is true as we act in the world to help others. If we do so from within stillness (stillness in action), there can be no harm. To the extent there is harm, it will be due to an impure expression of stillness, which we all do to greater or lesser degree. Noticing this in a natural way is actually part of our spiritual development, an aspect of automatic self-inquiry occurring as inner silence grows in us.
Of course, people can be offended by all sorts things, even the presence of a light being. Don't we know it? But I think there is a difference between someone being offended (harmed by their own limited perception), versus being harmed by an impurity coming from someone who is helping. Either way there are opportunities on both sides, and we should not stop acting for fear of making a mistake. The process of acting and learning in stillness is part of the path -- learning by doing. We get better at it by doing it.
I don't know about others, but I react on being helped when not wanted. It's creating if not negativity here, so at least a noticing of it being someone declaring my needs to me without having a clue of what my needs are. Being active on a "support forum" doesn't always imply I need support at the moment!
What I see is potentially a trap here with "newly realized". When you've reached a certain state of realization, people around you will find it very hard to bring any critique to the person, suggesting they might have own impurities causing "negativity" in the receiver of the message. It will most often be thrown back as "You are only being hurt from your own interpretations, and projecting back onto the realized" (argued both from the realized person and/or from the devotees around who wants to idealize the person).
Who will dare to speak eventually and what does it mean not to trust your own intuitive feeling? When I happen to "help" my students a bit too much at work, I see my students getting trapped in the thought "It feels bloody uncomfortable, but I guess she's right since she is the teacher/authority", and then shame comes as a result from not taking the intuitive feeling for an accurate response to an imposed impurity from the authority... At work I am in constant training of this, since the whole organisation is built on empowerment/equality, thus, when anyone puts him or herself above and takes the preferential right of interpretation it will hit back quickly from the other colleagues, and most certainly from the students who begin to be "impossible" to handle when the impurity hits back.
I'm just babbling on here... I'll stop now and I hope my point is finding its way out there.
Nisargadatta once said that "The master is happy with the seekers as they are"! |
Edited by - emc on Nov 26 2009 4:57:00 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 26 2009 : 11:13:03 PM
|
Hi All,
I was posting to TI in the Wayne Wirs thread, and realized most of the content of what I was saying to him fit better over here ... and might be of interest to everyone reading/posting in this thread, and so (per this thread's topic) ....
The teachers/information that I resonate with falls into two groups:
1. Non-dual, without symbolism (AYP/Yogani, Adyashanti).
2. Non-dual, with symbolism (Sophian Gnosticiam/Tau Malachi, Kashmir Shaivism/Abhinavagupta & Swami Lakshmanjoo, Kabbalah, Paramahamsa Nithyananda, Swami Muktananda, Bhagavan Nityananda, etc.).
.. though:
3. "Enlightened, clear and wise, whether symbolism is used or not" ... i.e. Nisargadatta, Ramana, Lakshmanjoo and Abhinavagupta ... have been a valuable group for me, as well.
... because all three groups of teachers/teachings (along with several other comparable non-dual schools within all wisdom traditions) are *solely* about how to realize enlightenment/true nature in your own experiencing .... and so, are solely about the ways to know you're home/how consciousness actually operates ... whether plainly spoken or via the use of religious/spiritual symbolism.
Someone might well ask: why go with any of the symbolic stuff, if the plainly spoken teachings get you t/here?
To which I'd say: because there's truly a wealth of valuable teaching in the symbolism-enhanced systems ... and once you get the symbolism, which is quite simple, really, in each case, once you spend a bit of time with each set (Sophian Gnostic, Kashmir Shaivite, and so on) .... the teachings are as plain as the "plainly spoken" set.
Example: I've been familiar with all the terms used by Tau Malachi in the excerpt Christi posted, for the last two-ish years, and I get how they correspond to equivalent terms in Kashmir Shaivism and the original Kabbalah (which are the same terms Tau Malachi uses, in general) ... and so, for me, jumping between teachings in any of those systems is seamless ... and there's no occlusion due to the Sanskrit or Hebrew terminology.
And so, per the levels of experiencing/consciousness in the respective systems:
Nefesh
Ruach {Lower & Upper}
Neshamah
Hayyah
Yechidah
Of the Kabbalah, Christian Kabbalah/Sophian Gnosticism and original (Jewish) Kabbalah
Are as transparent to me as:
Prthivi {inclusive of Earth/Waking/Nefesh}
Prakriti {Water, Nature/Dream/Lower Ruach}
Maya/Matrika {Fire/Deep Sleep/Upper Ruach*}
Shakti {Air/Turiya/Hayyah/}
... in Kashmir Shaivism.
(And "all of the above" listed terms have exact correspondences in Vajrayana and other non-dual schools of Buddhism {which Tau Malachi knows quite well, as well, per many of his posts on his forum}, and other non-dual philosophies and yogas, as well {Alchemy, Hermetic Mysticism, Tarot, etc.}).
This may not sound accurate to many; it wouldn't have to me a couple-few years ago, either ... but once I "caught wind" that these systems were/are ALL built around a single model of the full spectrum of consciousness - from body/sense-centric to enlightenment/all centric - *and* that they equated to to the *exact* same things being said by Tau Malachi, Yogani, Nisargadatta Maharaj, and (with a little symbolism at times, Ramana Maharshi), just "sans symbolism" ... and that each of these systems has a "yoga/set of practices" equivalent to AYP .... I became very interested.
Immersion in related research was what I was doing pretty much the entire time I took a break from the forum (mid-late 2007, to whenever I started posting again, earlier this year) ..... I just turned around and glanced at the table behind me .... which has probably ... no kidding .... a hundred related books on it.)
And so, NOTE TO TI: Despite my poor choice of words in the other forum, saying "I know how entertaining" immersion in information can be ..... I really didn't mean it insultingly, at all; I purely meant that voraciously consuming information, and *relying* on anything anyone (other than you) says .... is fraught with likely-to-be-enlightenment-occluding issues.
*However* .... if you "consume but don't rely" ... the information can serve you ... rather than tyrannize you ... which is true of all things Mayic (measurement-oriented, language-based, conceptual) .... if you approach it as guided by inner guru (your own highest intelligence/intuition), rather than as driven by mind.)
I only said that to you, because until fairly recently, I "resembled that remark" ... which never meant to me that *either* of us was not "deadly serious" ... I most certainly was (and I'm happy with the results of that level of dedication; ultimately: wanted the truth more than anything is what gets us to know ourselves as the truth) .. and you most certainly show yourself to be.
I was purely commenting on how you seemed to be ... post after post ... approaching information in a certain way; the same way I used to; that's all.
(The level of Shakti also equals: Undistorted Consciousness/Awareness, Vimarsa, Pratibha, Super Consciousness and Inner Silence}
& Shiva {Ether, Turiyatita, Yechidah}
(The level of Shiva also equals: Being, Infinite Light, Integrated Wholeness, Prakasha and Enlightenment.)
If you do a search here at the forum on Tau Malachi (and especially if you narrow it, by putting Kirtanman in the "member" field ... you'll find a bunch of stuff that I've posted; I know Christi has mentioned Tau Malachi in a "couple-few" other posts, as well).
Personally, the three spiritual teachers who have had the most direct influence in my life, have been:
Yogani
Tau Malachi
Adyashanti
(With a "lot of help" from Swami Lakshmanjoo and Abhinavagupta, two of the greatest sages of Kashmir Shaivism (<- The Shiva Sutras are online, via that link, btw).
Compared to all other available teachings, I just resonate most with enlightened teachers who are:
A. Alive
&
B. Who are easily accessible, directly (Yogani and Tau Malachi are easy to reach/talk with via email and forum; Adyashanti is, live at satsang or retreat).
What really blew me away is when I got:
NOT only are all of the teachers and systems teaching something *identical*, except for the language/specific symbols (and teaching it from the standpoint of being the enlightenment they're inviting us to) .... but each of these systems has a TON of information, which verifies the validity and correctness (as verifiable in experience) of both the assertions and the efficacy of the practices (ditto) of each system, as well.
Example:
Tau Malachi Quotes on Non-Duality
Mentioning this was/is my entire reason for starting this thread.
I hope it's helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- I've spent more time on this post than was a good idea, given my day in RL ("Real Life", as we used to say way back in Internet antiquity ...) ... and so, any glaring typos/"phrasing weirdness"/other errors, if there be such .... I'll plan to clean up later/tomorrow.)
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 26 2009 11:28:52 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 4:40:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by adamantclearlight
How many words does it take to point to the mind's real nature? Zero.
True ... yet in online forums, this is challenging at best.
Still good point.
|
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 28 2009 : 11:47:15 PM
|
Hi emc,
First, I don't recall if I've said this, but I'm reading End Of Your World by Adyashanti right now ... and very much enjoying; thanks for mentioning it!
quote:
Originally posted by emc
My point with these posts is that I'm certain we realize deeper and deeper, and that we are wise to continue to inquire even though we think we are without any type of self-reference.
quote:
Kirtanman: I agree ... if there's thinking/self-reference in the first place ... and especially if there's suffering. ...suffering is a signal to inquire.
quote:
Yes, true. And not only one's own suffering, but others as well!
Something interesting just happened here in Stockholm a while ago. One of those quite newly realized teachers who travel the world, holding satsangs, got into a rather nasty conflict with the people arranging his satsangs. They accused him of being ego-driven and not truly realized. (I don't know how he responded, I only heard the upset people.) After a while, the upset people even contacted the teachers former master and asked him for help to reach the teacher and make him listen to their complaints. The answer from the master to the teacher was spread (the original email) and read something like:
"Such upsetness and negativity never comes from nothing. If these people are so upset about your behaviour, then it might be time for you to do some inquiry again." And he actually recommended him to do some Byron Katie's The Work!
It's difficult to really comment on this, without having more of a sense of it .... though sounds like there may be "more to the story" than any one side of it.
When people criticize a teacher strongly, it's been my experience that most people are playing "fight the teacher", as an acting out of their own psychology. Obviously, this doesn't apply if the teacher is doing empirically horrible things (by almost anyone's definition -- literal and overt physical, sexual or emotional abuse) ... but that's hardly ever been the case, in my experience.
In fact, at least one of the teachers I've never had any problem with, or seen why anyone else would, and who has behaved in a completely benign, helpful and exemplary manner in all instances I've observed ... still elicited anger to the extent that someone was going to speak out publicly against that teacher .... which is A. Purely mystifying to me (anytime I have strongly "not resonated" with a teacher, I merely go elsewhere ... "no fighting required"), a B. much more of a statement regarding the ex-student, than the teacher.
But, again .... maybe the "upset" people had some cause for their upset; I couldn't say, of course, without knowing a lot more.
quote:
So this passage is quite interesting (if it's not a part where you are joking):
quote:
For some strange reason, I had a sense:
Hey, if I let other people know it's possible .... people will feel like:
"Awesome ... so AYP *does* work; I *can* get enlightened!" (<-- Or, more accurately ... get past *all* the crazy me-stories, including the enlightenment-related ones ....) .... but ... as some may have noticed .... the general response .... or, at least the more vocal ones ... have not been like that (((shrug))).
I really just am here to help, if possible .... not in a "big deal" way; just in a "like always" way.
quote:
In this at least I see underlying assumptions and expectation that was not being fulfilled the wanted way - others are giving you feed-back of a totally different kind. Why is that? What does that tell you? And you just want to help... Hm. Could be a subject for inquiry, in my world anyway.
I truly respect and understand this insight; all I can tell you, simply and honestly, is:
Zero upset, here (and no joking).
I just meant my comments above literally; the fairly lengthy dialog with TI and Christi in the Wayne Wirs thread was just unexpected ... but it's fine, in both cases, from "here" ... and hopefully ... good for all, overall.
If nothing else, readers will see views regarding enlightenment from a few different angles ... which will hopefully help their own experiencing of enlightenment, sooner and more completely, and/or other clarity, as pertinent.
And I meant my last comment ("only here to help" in the sense of "to contribute positively" .... in the same general sense that everyone here presumably has, in some way, with essentially every post ..... my point was more: I was just making what I felt was a "general, positive comment" ... and didn't realize the term "enlightenment" could be so charged for either Christi or TI ..... just literally: hadn't realized this .... primarily because conditioning "here" is pretty mellow; if anyone else ever "announces" experiencing of enlightenment ... I'm fairly likely to say: "Hey, great; good news!" ... if I say anything at all.
This is *not* better or worse than Christi's approach, or TI's .... simply a clarification of why I was literally a little surprised .... and even that (suprised) is more figure-of-speech than any felt experience, per se.
And, from here, at least, there's been no negativity that's unresolved (TI had felt insulted, if that's the right term -- TI, please comment, if not -- and when I realized that he was upset, and why, I simply and genuinely apologized ... if we'd been in the same room, he might not have gotten upset ... but words on a screen can be a lot different than live voice ... and it *did* sound like I was disparaging his "seriousness" ... which I have never felt for one second ..... one of the reasons I engaged in so much dialog with both Christi and TI, is even though they were challenging some things I said ... they're both clearly sincere about how they feel, and about their spiritual paths.
And so, any "negativity" was experienced by one person, temporarily, based on an understandable misunderstanding which was quickly resolved.
Not the same as the Stockholm Situation, as far as I can tell.
quote:
This is a quote from Yogani around the question "Does Truth ever create negativity?":
quote:
Inner silence has inherent within it a morally self-regulating quality. The same is true as we act in the world to help others. If we do so from within stillness (stillness in action), there can be no harm. To the extent there is harm, it will be due to an impure expression of stillness, which we all do to greater or lesser degree. Noticing this in a natural way is actually part of our spiritual development, an aspect of automatic self-inquiry occurring as inner silence grows in us.
Of course, people can be offended by all sorts things, even the presence of a light being. Don't we know it? But I think there is a difference between someone being offended (harmed by their own limited perception), versus being harmed by an impurity coming from someone who is helping. Either way there are opportunities on both sides, and we should not stop acting for fear of making a mistake. The process of acting and learning in stillness is part of the path -- learning by doing. We get better at it by doing it.
Very much agreed.
quote:
I don't know about others, but I react on being helped when not wanted. It's creating if not negativity here, so at least a noticing of it being someone declaring my needs to me without having a clue of what my needs are. Being active on a "support forum" doesn't always imply I need support at the moment!
Most of us do ... and or respond-by-ignoring.
That's never been my intention; one of the reasons I used the term "inviting" ... and invitation can be accepted, rejected or ignored, and it's all fine.
And in general, I'd say unsolicited advice is relatively rare, here, unless I'm missing a lot, somehow.
quote:
What I see is potentially a trap here with "newly realized".
If you wouldn't mind, emc ... could you please tell me what you mean by "newly realized".
I'm simply kind of unclear on who might fall into that category ... from the words alone, I kind of picture someone who just had their first "realization" ... "I am not simply this form, these thoughts and feelings; I am awareness", etc. etc. ... which has possibly subsided (hence the potential troubles you cite) ... yet, the Stockholm teacher you mention, gives (as you said) satsangs around the world ... implying, it would seem ... and active teaching practice.
And I know you've said you're not referring to me ... yet, per your quoting of my own words .... I'm not sure if you are, or not (and fine either way ... I'm truly just trying to understand).
For instance: I probably wouldn't call Adyashanti or Yogani "newly realized" ... would you?
In my experience, what most people call realization/awakening ... is the first set of experiences .... followed by the back-and-forth, and fight with ego-gravity Adya describes so well in End Of Your World.
What I've been called enlightenment/shift .... the sand running out of the hourglass ... is the other end of that often/usually multi-year process ... when it finally does all dissolve.
*IF* ego arises for more than a moment here, it will be dealt with in-as-with awareness.
That just hasn't happened in several weeks.
This isn't said in the egoic sense of "And *I* have no ego!!" ... just in the accurate-as-possible sense of: it's amazingly *quiet* here, now; it's nice ... all the stuff the took effort (maintaining awareness, keeping egoic thought in check, etc.) ... is now not an issue; it just doesn't arise.
Per that non-arising ... there's no real caring if "this is it" ... or if this is "technically definitely" enlightenment.
There's the experiencing of this as enlightenment ... but only because that's the most applicable term, as far as I know; the sharing was about the experiencing .... not about any need to call it anything, or to be thought of in any way.
quote:
When you've reached a certain state of realization, people around you will find it very hard to bring any critique to the person, suggesting they might have own impurities causing "negativity" in the receiver of the message. It will most often be thrown back as "You are only being hurt from your own interpretations, and projecting back onto the realized" (argued both from the realized person and/or from the devotees around who wants to idealize the person).
Well, as kind of alluded above, empirical behavior counts for a lot, here, in my experiencing.
If there are ongoing, multiple negative reactions to/from a given teacher ... and this teacher engages in behavior that almost anyone would find problematic ... then yes .... "evidence of issue" for sure.
On the other hand, when most people (good example: Yogani; another good example: Adyashanti) either A. observe a teacher to be helpful and benign (kind, calm, etc.) in all interactions, and/or B. See no evidence whatsoever of overtly harmful behavior (physical, emotional or sexual abuse, etc.) ... then any small group (which again -- all teachers tend to attract ... and this is almost always a very small, very loud, very angry minority) .... who plays "fight the teacher" is acting out their own unresolved psychology, and the teacher likely doesn't have anything to do with it.
Point Being: In my experience, there's usually no mystery, here .... if a teacher is creating a lot of strife .... the reasons/issues and primary source tend to be somewhat obvious ... whether it's the teacher or the students.
In my own case, if it's applicable at all (and I don't know that it is) ... I'm just a forum member, here .... offering encouraging commentary on enlightenment was/is the same, here ... as any other "benefits" of practice I've discussed .... enlightenment ... and the implications of it being actual, are seemingly problematic for one or two people here.
The differences from any of the "problematic teaching" dynamics, as far as I know, are:
A. I neither think of myself as a teacher, nor proclaim myself as one; I'm a forum member here, that's it.
B. There's no feeling of "above or beyond" the group; authentic enlightenment is literally the absence of that possibility, let alone the actuality; if anything, I simply feel more happily, easily and genuinely connected with all.
C. I don't think either TI or Christi perceive me as engaging in negativity, unfairness or unkindness, per se ... ever. Being direct at times, possibly .. as are they ... as is fine with me, and, I presume, fine with them (and I always invite them to say so, if anything I say about our shared dialog seems untrue, to them).
D. I don't feel any sense of conflict or unhappiness ... and I don't think they do, either (though, again, invite them to say so).
quote:
At work I am in constant training of this, since the whole organisation is built on empowerment/equality, thus, when anyone puts him or herself above and takes the preferential right of interpretation it will hit back quickly from the other colleagues, and most certainly from the students who begin to be "impossible" to handle when the impurity hits back.
I like that line "preferential right of interpretation" ... and yes, indeed ... this can be a conscious or unconscious ego play, for sure (speaking very generally ... as in: we've all seen this in action, I'm sure ... in multiple instances).
In my experience, the inherent solution is:
Shared, genuine respect.
This can't be faked .... but if it's truly present ... if the group is truly a cohesive group with mutual trust, respect and affinity ... any "preferential right of interpretation" won't stand a chance.
There's confidence with enlightenment .... but it's not confidence that needs to make anyone else wrong; no one else is wrong ....... we're all on the same side; heck ... we're all the *same* .... and actual enlightenment experiences this .... anything else is either ego-ploy, or "not enlightened yet".
The unconditional loving that's said to be part of enlightenment ... *is*.
It may not always "look" the way ego-minds think it should look ... but enlightenment cannot behave in empirically unloving (self-serving) ways ... and there's no one to take "credit" for either condition (loving/unloving) ... it's just the way actual awareness, without ego, moves.
And I get how that *might* sound (I can remember a time when I could have felt "Riiiiight there's no ego!!" .. upon reading those words) ... once again, though ... I'm just attempting to describe the "feel" ... ego-story here finally fell away ... actually.
If it returns, I have no issue saying so ... yet, there's the simple knowing it won't-can't ... which is not a concept to be defended ... simply a felt actuality.
Most people take this as a "prouncement thing" .... "*I* have no ego ... whereas *you* there ... *you* clearly have ego" ...... and it's not like that.
Ego is just the untrue concept called me; that distorted, unnecessary self-reference that we all live with, for a lifetime.
I'm just happily sharing: "Oh My God ... it actually goes away; very nice ... better than could have been expected .... try it ... you'll like it ... it's everyone ... everyone's ... equally."
No attachment to being believed, accepted, taken as a teacher ...... "zero zip nada" ..... I'm kirtanman at the AYP forum; as always; that's it.
*ALL* I'm saying, is:
If there's any non-peace out there, in anyone reading .... it can and does, cease permanently ... and you're in exactly the right place (AYP) to help bring that about.
If there was even a little bit of ego/mind left here .... there could so easily be a sense of "I am surprised about experiencing this as anyone else might be, reading about it" (kirtanman, experiencing enlightenment) .. but even that's not here .... it *all* falls away.
I remember reading in the Gita and other sutras/scriptures .... that there's "only action" (though no doer, etc. etc.) .... and I though that ranked right up there with "stillness and silence" as a fairly miserable outcome of years of spiritual practices ... but I get what they meant, now ... "only action, no actOR" ..... it's a flow/harmony thing.
Words (enlightenment, etc. -- and any ways my words "might" seem) create impressions in mind; feeling deeper than the impressions, the truth of intent is felt ... and please feel my simple unattached intention/invitation.
We all have this capability/intuition ... because the guru is {in} {all} of us.
And I'm not inviting anyone to pay any attention to *me* ... purely to what's possible within *you*.
quote:
Nisargadatta once said that "The master is happy with the seekers as they are"!
Absolutely. I don't presume myself as a master in any way; but I'm naturally happy with everyone/everything ... any sense that anything should be different is land-of-the-ego stuff, and no fun at all, as Byron Katie so wisely points out. ("When you argue with reality, you always lose ... but only 100% of the time.")
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2009 : 03:21:34 AM
|
Kirtanman, I see we have different terminology:
emc: first awakening, glimpses, wobbling, not 24/7
kirtanman: realization
emc: realization, self-realization aka enlightenment 24/7
kirtanman: enlightenment
I would never call myself realized or enlightened, only having awakenings/glimpses going on. But I'd say you are pretty newly realized/enlightened since a few weeks back!
I was not from the start aiming my posts at you, but as a general discussion, cause I know many who are where you are now. But since you are engaging in the discussion I started answering your posts in particular. I'd say one is still "newly realized" after having been where you are for say one or two perhaps even three years. That's mostly when people who have come where you are make their own homepage or start a mission, start having satsangs, travel around spreading the message "If I did it, you can do it too". And some of them are doing it very prematurely with a lot of ego structures left that others can see, but not they themselves, and people don't dare to tell them so. I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm just discussing a phenomenon I have noticed, and sometimes expemlifying with what you are writing.
There's a sense of having all ego structures running out like sand... and now, if you read my posts again - That's when the journey really starts! That's when the ego gets so sneaky you won't notice it - like a needle in a soft banana - cause you don't experience anyhthing else than that you're beyond it! That's why many teachers end up in situations like the described above - where the only reference left is the reactions of people around them - from within, it's only lala-land and no problems! See now, what I mean? Your first reaction to the example was also "most people are playing "fight the teacher", as an acting out of their own psychology". That's what I said is the most common response in those situations! See! You examplify it exactly the way I describe! And it might very well BE people's own psychology - OR it can be an impurity still sneaking around in the realized/enlightened person, which is sensed very much only on a certain energetic level. It's like we have an "ego-detector", because, as Yogani pointed out - Truth never brings negativity. And my point is - as opposed to yours - it absolutely does NOT have to be groce things like sexual/emotional abuse or the like. It can be very, very subtle, as subtle as putting oneself on a high horse, having the sense "I" can help others, or perhaps to be a "host" somehow able to invite people (although the invitation is always free)...
I'm very glad you are reading "The end of your world"! You are beyond the wobbling (hopefully permanently) but it will probably give you a good understanding of what it's like wobbling between the place that sounds very much like where you are now (perhaps a precursor place of some sort, but how shall we ever know, beacause it's a place that is described exactly the way you describe it), the place where the ego has run out fully as sand and is totally transparent... and then again... contracting back and *peekaboo* it's there again!
Bernie always says: "emc, you're living in two realities - get Real!". That's what it feels like. I'm surprised this mind is not psychotic yet.
I understand that you are putting your points forward in two different topics. Just for your info, I have not read the other topic with Christi and T_I, so I'm only following this one. Perhaps we are crossposting some points or you have to repeat a lot? I don't know.
Just sharing my Swedish krona here!
Love, emc |
Edited by - emc on Nov 29 2009 03:38:10 AM |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
|
|
YogaIsLife
641 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2009 : 3:58:52 PM
|
| Thank you for that emc. That happened to me. |
|
|
|
emc
2072 Posts |
Posted - Nov 29 2009 : 4:10:21 PM
|
| YogaIsLife, oh dear! How are you coping with it? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
"Levels" & Models of Enlightened Consciousness
