stirling

It is! I guess you could say it is the definitive CONCEPTUAL accounting of the depths of intellectually understanding emptiness, which makes it... uh... useless. Brings to mind:

It is the case for ANY enlightened "being" then or now.

Just a quick point: Enlightened beings do not have genders. This is not to say that they belong to some other popular contemporary category, but rather to say that Buddhas, like all things you might consider having intrinsic existence, are ultimately "empty" in the absolute understanding. A Buddha sees that ALL conceptual categories are arbitrary and dream-like, having no substantial reality. Buddhas and the fabric of reality in this moment are identity-free, indistinguishable, and seamlessly unified. It is not the Buddha himself that would have had these sorts of biases, but rather cultures that reified his teachings and turned them into systems or processes of enlightenment.

The podcast is also available in these locations. If you are interested enough to want to argue these points, (unless it is the arguing you are excited about and not the understanding) I definitely think you would find it interesting: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/975e8e97-7549-442e-8b98-31b28d6660d0/episodes/1d5077a8-b679-48c2-bff6-164a598d392e/worp-fm-003-do-what-thou-wilt https://open.spotify.com/episode/3OIqCgDVThWuysIt4keiDs Absolute Reality is much more than interdependence of people on other people, it is the interconnectedness of all things OR, taken to its logical conclusion, the absence of any separateness of individual things, people, space between things, or moments other than this one. It doesn't have anything to do with individual survival. Realization of the absolute is the end of believing that an individual has any reality. Even though we believe that what we perceive is a world of concrete objects that each exist as a thing separate from other objects, these objects are "empty" of the existence and identity imputed by the labels we give them. Our "world" has no separate objects or people, ultimately. How would you imagine that understanding that the fabric of your experiencing is what "you" are would shift the way you interact with it? How do greed, hate, or "personal power" (the topic of another concurrent thread) appear in such a context? As delusions. I am no apologist for Crowley, or his life, or teachings. I don't think Crowleys writings are the most direct teachings that could be used for liberation by a long shot, BUT I do think he understood the topic, and I DO think that (in isolation) the Thelema teachings can be used for enlightenment. The topic of podcast is both understanding the meaning of those teachings in this context AND how they can be used for liberation.

I understand that it is confusing. For many years I imagined that it was just as you have stated it, giving short shrift to the idea that Thelema was any kind of valid spiritual path. It took going through my old books a few years ago while moving, and skimming some of my Crowley collection once I had insight into the non-dual nature of reality to shift my opinion. "Do What Thou Wilt" is a non-dual statement. I doesn't refer to the activities or actions of separate people, but rather to the will of the unity that understood and perceived with non-dual realization. It is an Absolute vs. Relative discussion. If this is unfamiliar territory, a brief and simplified explanation of the relationship between these two can be found here: https://www.lionsroar.com/what-are-the-two-truths/ Once you have that under belt, I would recommend listening to Alan Chapman and Duncan Barford pick apart the Thelema practice and some of their experiences with it in this podcast: https://shows.acast.com/worp-fm/episodes/003-do-what-thou-wilt The discussion covers the most common misconception of the implications of "Do What Thou Wilt" - that it is carte blanche for ne'er do wells to act as they see fit. I'd be happy to clarify any questions you might have about either, as they come up. You are welcome to post here, or message me privately if you prefer.

You seem to have some unresolved feelings about either Aleister Crowley or Thelema practitioners in general. That is your prerogative, but it might be helpful to everyone (and you) trying to understand what is going on if you were to share how you came into your anger or fear about this topic. I mean this entirely sincerely, and without any hidden agenda.

This is the opinion of the "mind only" schools, but the debate on this topic goes surprisingly deep, and no-one has dug deeper than the Tibetans, IMHO. The various major schools of thought in Tibetan Buddhism include, but are not limited to: Sravaka, Cittamatra, Svatantrika, Prasangika, and Shentong approaches. For the full monty on the depth of "emptiness" and the nature of reality, I heartily suggest reading: Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, by Khenpo Tsultrim Gymtso Rinpoche. It is highly technical and challenging reading, but certainly authoritative.

Properly understood, Do What Thou Wilt IS a moral code. It is the freedom to see things as they are. An example: If you suddenly understood that the entire fabric of your experiences loved you, could never harm you, and was inseparable from what you are, do you think the desire to hurt it would truly arise? If you understood the everything you could need or want had always been provided, would you feel the need to steal? Wisdom (prajna), or understanding emptiness is the same understanding as "Do What Thou Wilt", just as being aligned with the Dao is. This understanding constitutes a morality superior to any list of subject/object do's and dont's. It doesn't make any sense if you think you are a "self" in a world of "others". If THAT was its context, you would be right, but that would constitute a misunderstanding.

There is ultimately only ONE understanding: "not two, not one"/unity/enlightenment/non-dual realization/alignment, etc. etc.. This becomes obvious when it is properly seen. This one realization is enlightenment. There aren't multiple levels, there is only deepening of the one understanding. From this deepening eventually come the "supernatural" aspects (siddhis, etc.) ... but these aspects in NO WAY overshadow or replace the reality of the first realization. The "supernatural" aspects are merely what is seen as obscurations drop away, NOT any deeper insight with deeper meaning. This idea that there are secret teachings that only one teacher possesses or understands are the most overt signs of snake oil there are. This is delusion. No specific technique causes enlightenment and never has. No specific approach will be best for "everyone". You mention steps of realization from the Four Stages of Awakening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening These fetters are realized by successive layers of "self" belief dropping away in a living being, not after death, in some other realm, or from any particular practice. Stream entry is realization. Realization deepens. After realization at the level of Arahant it becomes very difficult to describe in subject/object language what deeper realization means. It is beyond meaning, which sounds much more esoteric than it should. For example, how would you describe the flavor of a pomegranate? If I tell you will YOU understand completely what a pomegranate tastes like? If this is a correct representation of his understanding, he was much closer before. My 2¢.

There are two components to the spiritual path: Waking Up, and Growing Up. One the major components of Growing Up is letting go of our attachments to right or wrong and just realizing when we are fall short and less than kind. This shows a very real and tangible shift. Deep respect, and congratulations on your breakthrough.

Open Awareness meditation, also known as Shikantaza in the Zen tradition or Dzogchen in various Tibetan traditions, is just resting in the presence of this moment and noticing the entire field of phenomena as it arises and passes. Methods are crutches in this case. While you may use watching the breath, putting the attention on an object, or some other method to learn to rest in the stillness of Open Awareness, eventually all methods are dropped. Open Awareness is not different than enlightened mind EXCEPT that most will lack the insight (prajna) to fully see what they are resting in. Enlightenment is the dawning of insight and the realization of this primordial way of being.

Enlightenment does not see a difference between monastics and householders. I have met enlightened teachers from both. If you want to know which realm you will next incarnate in, look at how things are for you in this moment. Adjust your life accordingly.

The subject/object delusion is somehow VERY convincing.

... This really is some of Norbu Rinpoche's greatest teaching. It's pithy, concise and powerful. It's the whole path!

That makes sense, since non-duality is more of a non-conceptual or experiential understanding rather than anything we can arrive at by thinking about it. I agree that it does sound confusing. It is not so much about uniting apparent opposites, but rather realizing that "opposites" are an arbitrary conceptual idea, which I think you partially get. It is seeing through the idea of opposites - seeing that opposites exist only in the thinking mind. Seeing through opposites, on a deeper level, is seeing through the subject/object relationship in the way we frame reality and the way we use language. If we realize that the ideas of "here" and "there" (space), or "before" and "after" (time) even more mind-blowing, "self" and "other" (being), we can realize that these are all intellectual designations we use for things that don't exist in the way we think they do. Believe it or not, a taste of this (though not the complete understanding) can be shared within a minute so if there is some openness to it. I did this last Friday with a new student. In Tibetan Buddhism is called "Pointing Out Instruction". It honestly isn't something you don't understand, it is just too obvious and therefore commonly be dismissed.

People will do what they will do, yes, in accord with their level of understanding. Unfortunately the structure of many Thelemic magick organizations don't have a truly rigorous structure of lineage and realized masters that some other disciplines do. If you meet selfish, manipulative, unkind teachers in any organization, walk the other way. This IS non-dual realization. Realized "beings" largely tend to toward certain behaviors after understanding, though there is always the danger of what we in Zen call "Zen sickness" which is the delusion of becoming an enlightened "self". In this scenario, the awakened "person" understanding the basic realization but doesn't completely have opening into the fabric or EVERYTHING also being enlightened, which includes the people you might seek to manipulate. This is why a number of traditions emphasize devotional or loving-kindness practices to open up both "waking up", but also "growing up".

My understanding of Crowley's "Do What Thou Wilt" is that it does not mean "do what you feel like doing", or "indulge your most insane urges", but rather that the adept finds alignment with the unity principle variously labelled "Self" (big "s"), "God" or, "no-self", or what Lao Tzu would call the Dao. This fairly recent podcast by chaos magicians Duncan Barford and Alan Chapman does an great job of describing this set of ideas: https://shows.acast.com/worp-fm/episodes/003-do-what-thou-wilt No excuses made by me for Crowley's more arcane urges or motives.

Let me say that the primary point that I agree with Mr. Young on is that spiritual paths that rely on siddhis are often sideways motion instead of upward. Shinzen has used the metaphor of spelunking, saying that while a good spiritual path could be represented by a more or less continual upward climb, many "powers" often take us sideways and often not upwards at all. This reflects my personal experience with such things - interesting, but not really directly toward a complete understanding. I personally wasted many years thinking this was some kind of key to understanding, but with insight, now see that it is ultimately a cul-de-sac. Science is just another subject/object language and is therefore unable to render any real information about the nature of reality. Science takes a limited number of variables and looks for repeatable results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory How many variables would it take to model a universe? How many variables are there in the universe itself? It is obvious that any set of limited variables could never represent things as they are. It would take infinite variables (or possibly only 10,000? ). Science is, in my opinion, an inadequate vehicle for understanding or even properly modeling the universe even BEFORE one takes into account its flawed subject/object structure. Like all languages, it can never be efficacious for this purpose. - Not all schools of Buddhism are "mind only", but I see where you are going. (On this topic I would highly recommend Dakpo Tashi-Namgyal's amazing work, "Clarifying The Natural State" ) - My personal experience with the siddhis (which I did not seek, but are persistently present) is primarily with entities, and physic phenomena, neither of which I feel could be corroborated with someone else. My teacher and other teachers I have met have shared some truly amazing stories along other lines including time drop outs, teleporting through walls, etc., but none would be able to offer any real "proof" in the conventional sense. All of these people are ENTIRELY credible as far as I am concerned. I believe you might agree that once the nature of mind and reality is truly understood NOTHING seems truly impossible, (though some things seem more unlikely than others)? I support no particular view in this matter EXCEPT about the efficacy of pursuing siddhis on an enlightenment path for their own sake, which (in my opinion) are quite likely to merely reinforce "self-view" and deeper karmic fetters at the very least. I agree. I don't think that even having a spiritual pursuit is necessary to obtain minor siddhis in my experience, but having had some instances of them since my teens, I think they are a common diversion from real progress. I know what you mean by there being another "class", but I think until it is revealed as possible I won't be reifying their existence. My take is that having NO view on them is healthiest. I appreciate your thoughtful response. _/\_

Hahahahaha! I resemble that remark! I guess I lean toward the pragmatic (which is not to say that you don't) in that, if this technology as presented works, I'm OK with it. I am satisfied that Brasington's teaching as presented meets this criteria. Experientially I would identify what arises as markedly less energetic that what you say Woodward suggests. My experience is that awareness of breath or a breather drop away and there is just the presence of "being". All of these "minds" sound recognizably like variations of the same terminology to me. Dropping all of these "minds" 4th jhana, in my experience anyway - the emptiness of any contrived ways of being. I honestly think these are all conceptual ways of pointing to the same thing. I imagine that Mr. Brasington is aware of the various online sources for Pali translations. Doesn't he link to a number of them on his site, somewhere?

Meditation is the tool for this: When the mind is quiet and empty one can witness thoughts as they arise and pass away in experience. If we can WATCH our thoughts arise, are they "us"? No. What we see around is ultimately non-conceptually designated phenomena. Without your dialog about it, it is just sensation. The world you generate from your conceptual ideation is your karma, generated from your grasping and aversion... your story of the world as you understand it. It IS an abstraction. It IS dream like - illusory. So also are ALL conceptual ideas... AI, your brain, feedback loops, neural networks... the lot. Now what?

He has given talks at some of the most prestigious meditation centers and monasteries in the world. I have personally used his instruction to become proficient at accessing the jhanas, as has my teacher. His methodology is clean and clear, and understands perfectly the layers of what becomes "empty" and what to incline the mind toward. I think you underestimate his expertise on this topic. My take: If we are talking about the jhanas here, it is not my understanding or experience that they have anything to do with the body, or with contriving some kind of experience by getting the body to do something specific. Piti and sukkha arise naturally and of their own accord and this happens in almost any sit. Both are alluded to in the original Pali source material. They come up in the first few jhanas, both are naturally arising - noticed, NOT sought. The 4th is the first "empty" jhana, the first step into getting a taste of emptiness proper. The following 4 are previews of deepening aspects of the understanding of emptiness, but not actual insight. Brasington relies on the Pañcaṅgikasutta as the source for much of this teaching. From the Pali instructions for first jhana: https://suttacentral.net/an5.28/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false - Unrelated: Since it is a topic of interest, you might find Leigh's take on the authenticity of the suttas interesting too. It's on his website.

This is author and teacher Shinzen Young's take on the differences between the "powers" or Siddhis and enlightenment, or insight. This is also my experience, so it goes without saying that I absolutely agree with him: So the siddhis, or "powers" exist in the relative sense (we experience them, and it is most likely that no-one else could verify what we apprehend) but are not indicators of any absolute understanding, though they are sometimes made available after that understanding. The absolute understanding or enlightenment is, at the very least, this fundamental paradigm shift about what the "I" is and what "we" are.

A beautifully written, plainly spoken, loving-kindness-flooded masterclass in working with emerging emotions as they arise and pass away. Deep respect and gratefulness to you for your teachings.

I would say that enlightenment is realization of the non-dual/unity of reality. It is really just a perspective shift from thinking you are some being with agency that operates in a world of separate things, to suddenly seeing and completely understanding that this has never been "true" in the way you imagined. I think of the common "light" affiliated phenomena as secondary experiential effects that aren't really related directly to the central insight. There can be an immense variety of experiences when the realization dawns, but these experiences aren't the insight, more like the paper and bows it is wrapped in, often colored by the belief system you had before the new understanding of things.

If complete enlightenment understands that all appearances in consciousness are empty of any reality of their own, there is understanding that only the provisional view of reality is populated by illusory beings. From the absolute view of enlightenment then, "beings" are delusions. Given this, what would constitute a more "profound' being.