Aetherous

Some things to consider: Is the self that you found actually the one getting nowhere? If you find a self, is it really you? Who exactly experiences the non-dual state? It's not just asking, but finding out for sure exactly who you are. Are you sure that you're the one who was asking, after you find the answer? Is it really you that finds the answer? The mental processes never stop until the brain dies...it doesn't make any difference.

Exactly. Just basic weightloss would be a sign that a practice is good for you...but Kunlun doesn't do that. I like Max, but it doesn't matter if he says Kunlun cures HIV. He says A LOT of things that are very questionable. Need examples?

A person getting a transmission should consider what their goals are. Do you want to attain self realization and liberation...or do you want to gain access to some energy/deity? They are two totally different things, in my opinion. Edit: one more thing to add...you already have to deal with your own "karma"...I don't see the point of adding someone else's to the mix. It will have nothing to do with your true nature.

My experience is that no cultivation practice is good for this. If immunity is like eating a meal, then: Getting exercise and moving each day is the beef, Good balanced nutrition and sleeping well are the potatoes, and cultivation practices is the gravy. If you're only having gravy, you're going to be really hungry (it won't work and your health will suffer). If you just eat meat and potatoes, you won't be hungry, but it won't be as tasty as it could be (cultivation work does very little for health but it's nice to add in the mix). It's proven in numerous peer reviewed studies that exercise, mobility, nutrition and rest are all essential for health. It's not proven that meditation or qigong is...but it is proven that it can have beneficial effects (like stress reduction).

Then that's the religion you'll be best at.

Zappers don't kill HIV either.

I think the religion you grow up with is the one that sticks with you, regardless of anything.

Kunlun won't help battle HIV. In my experience, it can do bad things to your health.

I like Nicholas Roerich's paintings (he most likely was a big influence in the symbolism on the dollar bill). A few samples:

Mjjbecker, I'm not saying it has to be...it's just that the qualifier for what makes it enlightenment is what we've defined. I think it's more accurate to define it this way and say that this is the enlightenment the Buddha was talking about, because if you read the texts and talk to the Buddhist masters, it is. The biological process can be taken past this point. It can also happen long before this point, too. So it's only confusing to say anything about that. I prefer to just call it an altogether different kind of "enlightenment", although I don't even like to consider it that myself. Can you put quotes here of sages saying that?

Mjjbecker, Yep, specifically the Buddhist kind. Probably Theravadan...someone knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong on that point. I've spent years thinking that these ideas were Theravadan, and I'd like to know if I am wrong. I have read it. Fun book. I'm not interested in what they consider to be enlightenment, at least for this discussion. There really are different kinds of enlightenment. The way I've defined the one for this topic, is the 'no self' variety. We came up with this excellent definition for the kind we're discussing (it's still a work in progress): Enlightenment is a direct non-conceptual realization that there is no self/doer/thinker/watcher/witness/observer. It is a realization that there is only "phenomena-ing". It does not involve a loss of a self. It's not a state of being unaware of a self. It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with being able to manifest things into existence, or having magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises. That throws out a lot of different kinds of what people consider to be "enlightenment". But so be it: this is the kind we're talking about here. I'm cool with people talking about the nature of other kinds of enlightenment, too (it's not like I own this topic)...but I just hope that people stop confusing things... I am not discussing other kinds of enlightenment! I'm only talking about the kind we've defined. If you have no experience with this kind, then your contributions will probably be not so great. I do have experience...which is why I talk about this kind of enlightenment. This is the kind I experienced directly, like 7 years ago, after having read the map, and done the journey (not done traveling yet). Why would you assume otherwise? This discussion is good for me personally, to clarify things. I'm not "there" yet, and maybe some things are still unclear for me...so hashing it out is GREAT. It's also good for other people to get a different and more strict view of what this kind of enlightenment entails. Anyway, there was biological crazy stuff happening with my experience too (classic kundalini awakening, and possibly a mind to mind with some being or my "higher self", which was strange), but the key characteristic that made it enlightenment (in my opinion) and not just some other crazy phenomenon, was that my perception changed so that everything happening wasn't seen by "me". Best explained by that beautifully simple phrase: "sound, but no hearing"... The description we've come up with, above, describes it pretty well without being confusing as to which kind of enlightenment this is. To be clear: I don't consider meeting with a being, or getting guidance from a "higher self", enlightenment. Nor do I consider kundalini awakening enlightenment. I don't consider an endless evolution into higher light, or dissolving the ego or the body, to be enlightenment. The only kind that I personally consider to be "enlightenment" is the one I experienced and somewhat verified through reading a few Buddhist texts. That's just my opinion. I will acknowledge that people claim that all sorts of experiences are "enlightenment"...cool, call it that. I don't...not a big deal. I respect your traditions, and I'm sure they have valuable things in them. Once again: what I'm discussing in this topic has nothing to do with any of that. It only has to do with: Enlightenment is a direct non-conceptual realization that there is no self/doer/thinker/watcher/witness/observer. It is a realization that there is only "phenomena-ing". It does not involve a loss of a self. It's not a state of being unaware of a self. It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with being able to manifest things into existence, or having magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises. So please...no more confusing things. ... Also, I don't say this in an attempt to be rude, but if people want to be negative know it alls, I just won't reply to their comments. It's a total waste of my time. I'm here to discuss the topic, not discuss the supposed stupidity of discussing the topic. What else is a discussion board for, than to clarify things about our practices? Hopefully, I don't respond to any more pointless comments... Xabir, I am letting your last post sink in, and also reading more Ingram, trying to come up with a decent reply. It may take a few days...

Trevcaru, Truly thought provoking response! Listen, if you "yell" at me again, I just won't respond to you, "Trevcaru". It's a waste of my time to have to read your ranting and raving, all to get to the point that you think you're qualified enough to be able to try and 'yell me into realization', something which you haven't actually attained (which is apparent by everything you post). If you didn't catch it - I said you're not qualified enough to write like you're writing here. So basically what you said was, "Blah blah blah blah blah. BLAH!" Thank you for giving me that opportunity to learn so much about you! I will continue having this "intellectual tea time deep thought party" because it's essential for myself and everyone else to know exactly what our path is, so that when we go sit on the cushion, we clearly know what we're doing. If you want to continue here, and post something of value, I will welcome that! If you're incapable of doing so, then I will just not respond. I understood that...and I disagree. There is obviously experience after realization. It really is semantics when you start saying "well there's no one there to experience it" blah blah blah. Only dead people have no experience. There's nothing more to discuss on this issue because we'll just be going back and forth. You think the word 'experience' is inappropriate, and I don't care because enlightened people obviously still experience the world in some way...end of discussion. If I were a mouse running on a wheel, I would know what I was running on. Even if I don't experience something called enlightenment directly, I can know the definition and come to the conclusion that enlightenment is what's happening, based on how well my experience correlates with the definition. Pretty basic stuff.

Very good point.

Kate, I think it's my own fault...I didn't leave it open enough, and the discussion is pretty dense. I would skip over something like that if I wasn't involved in it personally. Boooooorrriinngg. Congrats to those who have posted in there! His site is awesome! Edit: I saw that you edited your post to say that it does have traction...I'm not totally sure what traction means, but whatever.

This is my favorite passage in the TTC. I look forward to seeing what others say!

You should talk to him and be like "are you really stopping my thoughts?" It would make for an interesting conversation! If he turns out to be some sort of master, then just hang out with him on the street! Bring him food!

Xabir, This is a little confusing for me. Because wind blowing may be perceived, and differentiated from non-wind blowing. It's hard to understand that no'thing' is experienced. Clearly (to me at least), things are perceived. Apparently I need more time on the cushion. It should. Personally I really like the "ing" added to the end of things. It was how my experience of enlightenment was. Like my breath was breath-ing. A sound in the room was sound-ing. Thoughts were thought-ing. Ing-ness. Awesome-ing... We've just covered whether enlightenment's an experience or not...and the verdict: enlightenment is not phenomenon, and can't be experienced as such, but there is experience with/after enlightenment, so the condition of enlightenment is experienced. Any qualms? So yeah, now that I brought my experience up...it's probably a good time to discuss whether this kind of enlightenment is permanent, or not. I tend to think it can be lost, due to personal experience and also a quote from Daniel Ingram (which I'll find later)...but you, Xabir, say that it's permanent, right? This should make for good discussion. I'm sure I'll learn something at least...

Gold, I agree. I could have just said "the experience of sound". Doesn't matter. Like it says in the definition, "there is no loss of self"...so an enlightened person experiencing sound would be the same as an unenlightened person experiencing sound. Sound is sound. My point was that even an enlightened person experiences. It was in response to this: I think where we might be getting hung up, is that people are thinking "enlightenment is not an experience". That's true...it's not like having sex for instance. That's an experience, because you're dealing with phenomenon. So some thing is not necessarily experienced as enlightenment, but things are still experienced with/after enlightenment. I don't care to get into a debate about how we shouldn't say things are 'experienced' when there's no witness to experience them. It's obvious that things are always experienced regardless. So that kind of discussion is just playing around with semantics. I don't think so. I agree with Xabir's thoughts here: But to me, in layman's terms, I still refer to that as being "no subject, only object". Or I guess to put it in a better way, "only phenomenon".

Trunk, We may be discussing a different type of enlightenment...your version being more Tibetan/Taoist, and the one I'm attempting to discuss, being pretty much strictly Buddhist. Like Theravadan Buddhist, maybe...but I'm not a scholar at ALL. The two can overlap, but there are different goals, effects, and indicators for each. For instance, your version involves a vajra self appearing...the version I'm speaking of has nothing to do with that, and isn't about a mundane self going away, but rather, about seeing that a mundane self was never there. Anyway, I may be wrong! You mean that enlightened people: have withdrawn emotionally from the world, have lost all negative emotions, are able to perform magical feats or have supernatural powers, accept everything fully, and reside in the space from which everything arises? If so, then we're talking about different varieties of enlightenment. Which is why I needed to define 'enlightenment' before discussing the nature of it. If we're all using the same word for different things, it'll get really confusing when we start talking about whether it's permanent or not, whether it's final or an endless progression, whether it's an experience or experienced, or not, etc. A "rock" can be the side of a pebble, or the size of a mountain. Without knowing which kind we're discussing, it could be very misleading to just say "rock". It's important to distinguish first. As a side note, it's fine if people want to discuss other kinds of enlightenment in here. The topic is open in a public forum! The discussion of the nature of enlightenment doesn't have to be limited to one kind. I'm just focusing on this kind, since I think I have experience with it and am interested to learn more through discussion. Xabir, Nice. Maybe the 'objects without subject' part should just be left out. It makes sense to me in the way that you describe "just a non-dual 'flowing' experience of various phenomenality occurring in seamless wholeness without objectification." But I can see that it could confuse someone when it's said that there's only object, and it isn't exactly correct. Nice. Yep, something definitely changes in the response to emotions arising, when someone's not caught up in delusion, but emotions ceasing completely, or only positive ones being there, is wrong.

"Be the change you wish to see in the (bums)." If things are boring, spice it up. The way I see it, this is the responsibility of the long term members. If you guys want to keep it the way you like it, then set the standard.

So for a definition of the enlightenment being discussed in this topic... Enlightenment is a direct non-conceptual realization that there is no self/doer/thinker/watcher/witness/observer. It is a realization that there is only object and no subject. It does not involve a loss of a self. It's not a state of being unaware of a self. It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with being able to manifest things into existence, or having magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises. Any changes?

Trevcaru, If there's no person experiencing it, is it still not experienced? I like the quotes that xabir posted earlier on in the thread which went something like, "there is sound, but no listener." This pure experience of sound (without the filter of a self) is still an experience. If it weren't an experience, there would be no sound. At least this is my interpretation of the word "experience." What do you think?

Yup! Good post, vortex.

Dude...take a break from all the masturbation!

eJobANCv4W4