The Nature of Enlightenment

[Aaron]

Hello folks,

 

Before I begin this topic I would like to make it clear that the following is my own opinion, based on my own experience and knowledge or lack there of. It is not meant to be taken as fact, but rather an examination of the state of awareness as I have experienced it. I am not a guru or wise man by any means. I am simply a human being, the same as you. I am often wrong, so please keep that in mind. I hope that in the course of this dialogue we can share with each other our own concepts of enlightenment in a free and open manner, whereby we do not judge each other, but rather come to understand each other better.

 

Since I've started many topics such as this, many of you already have a general idea of where I stand on the concept of enlightenment. For me enlightenment is not the end of contemplation, but rather very much the beginning. This may sound strange to those who have come to an understanding of enlightenment through an Eastern religion or philosophy, or may only have a general idea of what enlightenment entails, so I will try to explain exactly why I believe this to be true. Before I can do that I think it's only fair that I explain what I believe enlightenment to be.

 

For me enlightenment is simply the awareness of the nature of one's self being simply one. What I mean to say is that we have not only come to an understanding of the fact that we are everything in existence, but we have also experienced this. How one does this is not important. Most people who have reached this state of enlightenment have done so through meditation, but that is not the sole way to reach it. Again, it's not important how one reaches enlightenment, or even if they have reached enlightenment. Enlightenment, in my opinion, changes nothing but the state of awareness one has in regards to the universe.

 

With that said, one might ask what I mean when I say, "everything in existence?" Well the intellectual explanation is simply that we understand that there is only one thing in existence, whether you call that the Godhead, god-spark, god-self, Krishna, or universe. When you have reached enlightenment you have realized on an experiential level that you are that God-self.

 

I achieved this revelation while laying on my bed and reading a book. I had similar experiences while I was meditating on numerous occasions, but it was during this rather mundane activity that I believe I truly experienced being. I was no longer simply Aaron, but instead for a moment I was everything that existed. I understood the nature of who I was and the illusion of separation.

 

Many may doubt this because my own experience does not seem to be in line with other traditional ideas of enlightenment, well that's fine and I encourage you to have doubts. After all anyone can claim enlightenment, in fact a well read individual can give you intimate details on the exact nature of enlightenment. My response to those people who have questions is to never accept someone's claims of such a thing. Even a person who is humble, kind, compassionate, and knowledgeable may not be enlightened. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of people who have reached enlightenment are still very much the same as before they reached enlightenment, the only difference being that after enlightenment they've reached an understanding that wasn't there before.

 

I believe that there are different degrees of enlightenment and that simply experiencing oneness is not enough, that there is more after that. I don't necessarily believe that upon understanding the nature of oneness that one inherently understands the nature of the universe. Enlightenment no more qualifies one to be a brain surgeon, than it does a psychologist, rather it allows one a unique understanding of exactly who they are, and it is this knowledge that should propel one to continue their practice.

 

Anyways, I have a tendency to go on and I don't want to do that. If anyone has questions I'd be happy to answer them, but I would also very much like to hear about other people's experiences in regards to enlightenment, whether they are little enlightenments or big, so feel free to share. In the end this isn't supposed to be about my own experience, but rather a thread where we can bounce or own experiences and ideas regarding enlightenment off each other. I just would like to ask once more that you keep in mind this thread wasn't started as a place to judge other people, but rather to share our own experiences and learn more about other people's experiences and ideas about enlightenment.

 

Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

Edited May 8, 2011 by Twinner

[Birch]

Hello Aaron,

 

Well, I reckon there are definitely experiences that folks have come to share and talk about with each other. Sort of like opening a window when you could already see out :-)

 

I wonder if so many people are having what sounds to me like similar experiences if that's really enough to write down as "enlightenment".

 

I reckon there might be different types :-)

 

I figure what often happens (and I reckon what probably happened to me) and is maybe called "enlightenment" sort of offhand is that people break (or rather, that reality helps and insists that they do) through their own conditioning. As in they break through the "who, what, when" and other "fundamentals" that up until a point they took as being the case.

 

They understand (suddenly or gradually) that those "things" are at the very least questionable or simply not true - "truth" being in my range of definition something that lines up with reality rather than anything else.

 

I think that for this type of enlightenment I'm describing, our increasingly global communications and travel and education and all kinds of stuff are causing dynamics that just won't allow for people to continue to believe ad-nauseum in their own conditioning (if only because they can see the evidence that there are other ways and thoughts and ideas elsewhere) and so it's probably IMO going to get more and more frequent.

 

Then I reckon there is also (potentially) another kind of "enlightenment" which is sort of linked to the first type I suggested (and the ways it is linked are of themselves pretty awesome IMO) but is much more "self-contained". That is the breaking of the "who, what, when" and other "fundamentals" that up until a point they took as being the case just breaks. I guess that sort of begs an argument of some kind for some people being predisposed to it more than others.

 

And yes, I consider that in both cases there are overlaps (which lead to a variety of versions of it) and mental/physical/psychological changes that can probably be measured if we bothered to.

[Birch]

double post

Edited May 8, 2011 by -K-

[Nanashi]

Enlightenment is truth in brevity-- eternity in a single moment. Knowing the bigger and smaller pictures, and seeing how everything effects everything. Experiences leading to this and flowing from this are only meaningful to understanding the actions of yourself and others.

[ShaktiMama]

It means nothing to me.

[Encephalon]

Like the title of Jack Kornfield's book "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry," it's not a state of mind that kicks in permanently. We have our glimpses of connectedness, of oneness, but egocentrism keeps shutting the door. I think it's been demystified as an intensely perceptive psychological state free of baggage. Personally, the most interesting investigations are happening in the area where deep ecology, or eco-psychology, and cognitive science intersect. Of course, you'll find Buddhism and Taoism well represented there, looking for the mind of God in the Web of Life. Fritjof Capra's the Man!

 

typo

Edited May 8, 2011 by Blasto

[Marblehead]

Enlightenment is truth in brevity-- eternity in a single moment. Knowing the bigger and smaller pictures, and seeing how everything effects everything. Experiences leading to this and flowing from this are only meaningful to understanding the actions of yourself and others.

 

Isn't that "Awareness"?

[Nanashi]

Isn't that "Awareness"?

 

That is part of it, yes, but not what I was describing in whole. Linguistically, "awareness" is more akin to knowledge through perception. I am saying a marriage of wisdom and knowledge is necessary to nurture as thought until actions are virtuous without thought. Awareness is a large part of it, sure, but many people grasp unto a small portion of awareness-- seeing a tip of an iceberg and mistaking that part as the entire thing.

 

Now, complete awareness coupled with humbled wisdom-- maybe it is that simple.

[Marblehead]

That is part of it, yes, but not what I was describing in whole. Linguistically, "awareness" is more akin to knowledge through perception. I am saying a marriage of wisdom and knowledge is necessary to nurture as thought until actions are virtuous without thought. Awareness is a large part of it, sure, but many people grasp unto a small portion of awareness-- seeing a tip of an iceberg and mistaking that part as the entire thing.

 

Now, complete awareness coupled with humbled wisdom-- maybe it is that simple.

 

Excellent response!!!

 

I like your last sentence!!

[Otis]

Good stuff, Aaron and everyone else.

 

For me, self-definition is a trap, so I don't see usefulness in believing or disbelieving a concept like "enlightenment".

 

That said, from what I have observed: there are many revelations that help to wake me up from who I was, and open me to freedom. I don't think that any one of them is THE deal, but each one makes it easier to find balance and shed baggage. I can remember the first "lightning bolt" experience, but there were certainly smaller quieter revelations that preceded it.

 

As Aaron has said, even the "lightning bolts" are not IME instant fixes. They are merely permission, and a path, for beginning to surrender habits and self. From there on, change becomes easier, even joyful, but habits are deeply entrenched and not easily dissolved, so a realization does not substitute for practice. In that sense, I agree: the awakening is just a beginning, not a destination itself.

 

There is a great gulf between "being able to see a revelation clearly" and "living clearly". The latter is a growth process that may never have an end. I hope it doesn't. How exciting to be on the path, but how dull to have arrived.

[C T]

 

For me, self-definition is a trap, so I don't see usefulness in believing or disbelieving a concept like "enlightenment".

 

That said, from what I have observed: there are many revelations that help to wake me up from who I was, and open me to freedom. I don't think that any one of them is THE deal, but each one makes it easier to find balance and shed baggage. I can remember the first "lightning bolt" experience, but there were certainly smaller quieter revelations that preceded it.

 

As Aaron has said, even the "lightning bolts" are not IME instant fixes. They are merely permission, and a path, for beginning to surrender habits and self. From there on, change becomes easier, even joyful, but habits are deeply entrenched and not easily dissolved, so a realization does not substitute for practice. In that sense, I agree: the awakening is just a beginning, not a destination itself.

 

There is a great gulf between "being able to see a revelation clearly" and "living clearly". The latter is a growth process that may never have an end. I hope it doesn't. How exciting to be on the path, but how dull to have arrived.

Very well observed, Mister O.

 

I personally do not see the possibility of any end-goal/destination. But that's just me. You appear to share this view too. My take has always been that we have never left the 'destination', and any attempt to hack around, scything thru imaginary obstacles in the hope of clearing a path which leads to transcendence, and eventually, Enlightenment, is only duping oneself and reinforcing delusion.

 

Meditation practice/contemplation/introspection can serve to clear away the clouds, the smoke and haze - revealing the original state, the original mind, the primordial nature of a mind which abides in non-dual awareness. Such a mind does not grasp at mental/emotional arisings, but merely allows such to appear and recede without the need to make additional contributions, that is, there is a courageous and simple refusal to stir these movements of thoughts so that they are free to come and go. Only then will the energy that stoke the dramas, the games, the stories, which then fan the flames of desire, gradually lose its momentum. After years of such discipline, of what purpose is concerning oneself with what Enlightenment is or is not, or if one is close to or far from it.

[Aaron]

Hello Aaron,

 

Well, I reckon there are definitely experiences that folks have come to share and talk about with each other. Sort of like opening a window when you could already see out :-)

 

I wonder if so many people are having what sounds to me like similar experiences if that's really enough to write down as "enlightenment".

 

I reckon there might be different types :-)

 

I figure what often happens (and I reckon what probably happened to me) and is maybe called "enlightenment" sort of offhand is that people break (or rather, that reality helps and insists that they do) through their own conditioning. As in they break through the "who, what, when" and other "fundamentals" that up until a point they took as being the case.

 

They understand (suddenly or gradually) that those "things" are at the very least questionable or simply not true - "truth" being in my range of definition something that lines up with reality rather than anything else.

 

I think that for this type of enlightenment I'm describing, our increasingly global communications and travel and education and all kinds of stuff are causing dynamics that just won't allow for people to continue to believe ad-nauseum in their own conditioning (if only because they can see the evidence that there are other ways and thoughts and ideas elsewhere) and so it's probably IMO going to get more and more frequent.

 

Then I reckon there is also (potentially) another kind of "enlightenment" which is sort of linked to the first type I suggested (and the ways it is linked are of themselves pretty awesome IMO) but is much more "self-contained". That is the breaking of the "who, what, when" and other "fundamentals" that up until a point they took as being the case just breaks. I guess that sort of begs an argument of some kind for some people being predisposed to it more than others.

 

And yes, I consider that in both cases there are overlaps (which lead to a variety of versions of it) and mental/physical/psychological changes that can probably be measured if we bothered to.

 

 

Hello Kate,

 

Enlightenment is a fickle thing, at least in regards to how most people define it. It seems that many people feel that the similarity of experience is what authenticates enlightenment, or, if you don't experience my form of enlightenment, then you haven't experienced it. I don't necessarily believe that. I think that enlightenment can be different for each person.

 

I'm not sure if I like the term "break", but I understand what you're saying and I think you might be onto something.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Good stuff, Aaron and everyone else.

 

For me, self-definition is a trap, so I don't see usefulness in believing or disbelieving a concept like "enlightenment".

 

That said, from what I have observed: there are many revelations that help to wake me up from who I was, and open me to freedom. I don't think that any one of them is THE deal, but each one makes it easier to find balance and shed baggage. I can remember the first "lightning bolt" experience, but there were certainly smaller quieter revelations that preceded it.

 

As Aaron has said, even the "lightning bolts" are not IME instant fixes. They are merely permission, and a path, for beginning to surrender habits and self. From there on, change becomes easier, even joyful, but habits are deeply entrenched and not easily dissolved, so a realization does not substitute for practice. In that sense, I agree: the awakening is just a beginning, not a destination itself.

 

There is a great gulf between "being able to see a revelation clearly" and "living clearly". The latter is a growth process that may never have an end. I hope it doesn't. How exciting to be on the path, but how dull to have arrived.

 

 

Hello Otis,

 

Very well said, but I think it's also important to remember that when we have these experiences, that they can fade over time. When that happens, what do we do? In my case I don't necessarily try to relive the original experience, but as you have stated so well here, I begin to "live clearly", using the experience as a catalyst for change. Meditation only takes you so far (IMO), at some point one must start to apply those changes to one's life, if they don't then what is the ultimate purpose?

 

Aaron

[deci belle]

[Birch]

Hello Kate,

 

Enlightenment is a fickle thing, at least in regards to how most people define it. It seems that many people feel that the similarity of experience is what authenticates enlightenment, or, if you don't experience my form of enlightenment, then you haven't experienced it. I don't necessarily believe that. I think that enlightenment can be different for each person.

 

I'm not sure if I like the term "break", but I understand what you're saying and I think you might be onto something.

 

Aaron

 

 

I suppose they're doing they're best to explain something, yes. Or, they might not be :-) Could they be singing the song but not actually living it?

 

"Authenticating enlightenment" is an interesting rabbit hole IMO. In other words there's always someone or something else attempting to tell you what you experienced That's just properly insane IMO. And to think it's perpetuated all the way to what is touted by some as the "highest" realization. Hahahaha.

 

Still, I found Dan Ingram's stuff very useful. Why? Why did I find a need to go seek out maps for this stuff? Oh yeah, because I found it scary as hell. Yes I found maps reassuring. What to say to that?

 

What if it really is just a recurrent (if not somewhat rare but getting less-so all the time) human experience? Wouldn't that point to it being a very natural part of any human life? What if it happens all the time but people miss it or imagine they are going nuts? What if part of it is down to personal choice?

 

Anyway, I seem to have a bad habit of going off on tangents, but I find it interesting that one would still like to claim individuality in this process: "my enlightenment" vs "yours" or anyone else's enlightenment. Wouldn't that mean that it really wasn't/isn't "enlightenment"? Don't we hear those "ego-less" people wax lyrical about enlightenment being this definitive ending of "me"?

 

I don't buy it. Yes, one of my experiences was having "me" drop out the bottom of myself. But it came back

[Otis]

Very well observed, Mister O.

 

I personally do not see the possibility of any end-goal/destination. But that's just me. You appear to share this view too. My take has always been that we have never left the 'destination', and any attempt to hack around, scything thru imaginary obstacles in the hope of clearing a path which leads to transcendence, and eventually, Enlightenment, is only duping oneself and reinforcing delusion.

 

Meditation practice/contemplation/introspection can serve to clear away the clouds, the smoke and haze - revealing the original state, the original mind, the primordial nature of a mind which abides in non-dual awareness. Such a mind does not grasp at mental/emotional arisings, but merely allows such to appear and recede without the need to make additional contributions, that is, there is a courageous and simple refusal to stir these movements of thoughts so that they are free to come and go. Only then will the energy that stoke the dramas, the games, the stories, which then fan the flames of desire, gradually lose its momentum. After years of such discipline, of what purpose is concerning oneself with what Enlightenment is or is not, or if one is close to or far from it.

Agreed.

 

Balance, efficiency, clarity and compassion are examples of things, of which there is no end to the potential for growth. Waking up is not only about shrugging off sleep, but also stretching, getting out of bed, and moving on.

[Otis]

Hello Otis,

 

Very well said, but I think it's also important to remember that when we have these experiences, that they can fade over time. When that happens, what do we do? In my case I don't necessarily try to relive the original experience, but as you have stated so well here, I begin to "live clearly", using the experience as a catalyst for change. Meditation only takes you so far (IMO), at some point one must start to apply those changes to one's life, if they don't then what is the ultimate purpose?

 

Aaron

Agreed. I very much see everyday life as my practice realm. I'm also a huge believer in play as practice, because I think the emotional context of play is perfect for staying open and joyful, and yet remaining fully committed.

[hagar]

Hello folks,

 

Before I begin this topic I would like to make it clear that the following is my own opinion, based on my own experience and knowledge or lack there of. It is not meant to be taken as fact, but rather an examination of the state of awareness as I have experienced it. I am not a guru or wise man by any means. I am simply a human being, the same as you. I am often wrong, so please keep that in mind. I hope that in the course of this dialogue we can share with each other our own concepts of enlightenment in a free and open manner, whereby we do not judge each other, but rather come to understand each other better.

 

Since I've started many topics such as this, many of you already have a general idea of where I stand on the concept of enlightenment. For me enlightenment is not the end of contemplation, but rather very much the beginning. This may sound strange to those who have come to an understanding of enlightenment through an Eastern religion or philosophy, or may only have a general idea of what enlightenment entails, so I will try to explain exactly why I believe this to be true. Before I can do that I think it's only fair that I explain what I believe enlightenment to be.

 

For me enlightenment is simply the awareness of the nature of one's self being simply one. What I mean to say is that we have not only come to an understanding of the fact that we are everything in existence, but we have also experienced this. How one does this is not important. Most people who have reached this state of enlightenment have done so through meditation, but that is not the sole way to reach it. Again, it's not important how one reaches enlightenment, or even if they have reached enlightenment. Enlightenment, in my opinion, changes nothing but the state of awareness one has in regards to the universe.

 

With that said, one might ask what I mean when I say, "everything in existence?" Well the intellectual explanation is simply that we understand that there is only one thing in existence, whether you call that the Godhead, god-spark, god-self, Krishna, or universe. When you have reached enlightenment you have realized on an experiential level that you are that God-self.

 

I achieved this revelation while laying on my bed and reading a book. I had similar experiences while I was meditating on numerous occasions, but it was during this rather mundane activity that I believe I truly experienced being. I was no longer simply Aaron, but instead for a moment I was everything that existed. I understood the nature of who I was and the illusion of separation.

 

Many may doubt this because my own experience does not seem to be in line with other traditional ideas of enlightenment, well that's fine and I encourage you to have doubts. After all anyone can claim enlightenment, in fact a well read individual can give you intimate details on the exact nature of enlightenment. My response to those people who have questions is to never accept someone's claims of such a thing. Even a person who is humble, kind, compassionate, and knowledgeable may not be enlightened. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of people who have reached enlightenment are still very much the same as before they reached enlightenment, the only difference being that after enlightenment they've reached an understanding that wasn't there before.

 

I believe that there are different degrees of enlightenment and that simply experiencing oneness is not enough, that there is more after that. I don't necessarily believe that upon understanding the nature of oneness that one inherently understands the nature of the universe. Enlightenment no more qualifies one to be a brain surgeon, than it does a psychologist, rather it allows one a unique understanding of exactly who they are, and it is this knowledge that should propel one to continue their practice.

 

Anyways, I have a tendency to go on and I don't want to do that. If anyone has questions I'd be happy to answer them, but I would also very much like to hear about other people's experiences in regards to enlightenment, whether they are little enlightenments or big, so feel free to share. In the end this isn't supposed to be about my own experience, but rather a thread where we can bounce or own experiences and ideas regarding enlightenment off each other. I just would like to ask once more that you keep in mind this thread wasn't started as a place to judge other people, but rather to share our own experiences and learn more about other people's experiences and ideas about enlightenment.

 

Peace be with you.

 

Aaron

 

Thank you for an insightful post.

 

I don't really know anything about englightenment. What most realized humans say is that our "True Nature" is here, always. Problems start to arise for me when "I", that is Anders, think that this body and mind, that exists in time, need to do, understand or gain something to realize this. Anders does this all the time, out of habit. Mostly before I become aware of it.

 

Last year I went to Cervinia to ski. Its located at the foot of the Matterhorn. I've always wanted to see it; the ultimate mountain. The first couple of days, we were caught in a blizzard, and we were just stuck in this whiteout not seeing anything. Thing was, I felt that to really experience the mountain, I had to climb it, or ski it, be on it, to really experience it.

Thing was, the next morning, as I sat on the john, I saw out of the window, and there it was. Bright, shining, aweinspiring. I realized it had been there all the time. Even when I was not here.

As I walked over to the lifts with my skis in the morning sun, there was a lady in fir sitting on an outside cafe drinking coffee, looking at the same mountain. Its presence was there for her as it was for me. She had no less access to it than a climber that was approaching the summit. It was allready there.

 

You and I will never get enlightened. Its all about this painful project of resignation, or loss. Its not about an awakening. Its a wake up call.

 

Most people think that enlightenment is about knowing. I too unconsciously hope that Anders, the aspiring mystic, will finally, at some point in time "know" something.

But it does not work. The only thing we can do is give up. Stop. listen. Let whatever is come and annihilate you. Then there's an oppporunity to give in to this ongoing process of loss.

When Anders the extreme skier, climber and escapist mystic realized that he was not going to "become" part of any Matterhorn, in some primordial act of union, did he understand that Anders, did not really matter in this picture. Actually, he was just in the way, and he had to die. He could not climb it, ski it and come home to talk about it. Then he would have killed the Matterhorn, and it would have been lost forever in oblivion. Anders had to go home.

Only then could he slide around and appreciate it, just being there.

 

Saying this much is also saying too much. Just forget about it, and forget about enlightenment. Don't spoil the big joke.

 

h

[Otis]

Most people think that enlightenment is about knowing. I too unconsciously hope that Anders, the aspiring mystic, will finally, at some point in time "know" something.

But it does not work. The only thing we can do is give up. Stop. listen. Let whatever is come and annihilate you. Then there's an oppporunity to give in to this ongoing process of loss.

Excellent!

[Aaron]

This thread has a wonderful tone! Aaron, your intuitive sense of this matter…❤ Human being is this matter entirely. Enlightenment is not a concept, it is the direct experience of the totality of the nature of selfless awareness.

 

There is that which is the absence of even non-existence. The reality of the uncreated is unborn in that it has never ever come into being. Call it living aware potential energy responding to the breath of the source of nonorigination, for better or worse. Beginninglessness is not a term to connote inconceivable span of time— it is the definition of inconceivable nonorigination. Experience of causeless selfless cessation is the experience of this reality.

 

Even if the experience is one of nameables such as Oneness, Godhead, etc— there is that which is beyond the ken of human enlightened knowledge. So the uncreated reality is just as far as mind can experience directly as uncreated reality. One only experiences nonpsychologigal impersonal awareness as a direct result of interrupting consciousness and thereby ceasing to exist. How else could one experience non-existence? By the way, awareness has no content, person or attributability. The living awareness which enables you to read these words is itself the light of consciousness. It is you right now. This is how close we are. The realization of enlightened nonbeing is not some other light. Awareness has no identity or quality of becoming. Awareness itself is itself the light of awareness. You are intimately one and the same.

 

Which brings up the matter of life and death. Awareness is the light itself. Unborn, undying— there is no difference. Nonorigination is your nature—is you. Death does not exist. That which is created dies, but upon your death, you see nothing dying, because there is, in truth, nothing to die. Though the spirit leave the body, it is not your spirit. The spirit leaving your body at the time of death is the same spirit which returns to its source when consciousness is interrupted at the time of seeing your nature. So it is you, but you are not it.

 

Seeing nonorigination destroys karma. Don't think twice, it's alright. So you return and re-enter the world with hands open, and take the forward step. Twinner~ Nailed it!! Otherwise there would be no point as everyone is already in possession of this reality.

 

There is actually a way to do this. If the power of enlightened experience doesn't fade away, you build on it by endless transformations. Continuing the process of self-refinement without end, because you know what lies beyond the veils yonder. And you can learn to work the yin convergence yourself and thereby take over creation unbeknownst to anyone else.

 

Enlightenment is not the object of taoist alchemy. The teachings of chan are for enlightened individuals— don't bother arguing that. If you have experienced unsurpassed thoroughgoing enlightenment, you know that the teachings are even more precious than before. The first schools of buddhism were associations of enlightened and enlightening beings, in order to help each other on the path after stepping over eternity.

 

 

Hello Deci Belle,

 

Thanks for your response. I think we are very much saying the same things. I think many people view existence and non-existence, self and no-self, as separate things, but I don't think that's so. I think they are the same thing, like computer code, one is a zero, the other a one, without both reality cannot be designed. Although both may seem to be different things, the zero and one are intricately linked in the same experience, they just exist at different spectrums of that experience.

 

Aaron

Edited May 9, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I suppose they're doing they're best to explain something, yes. Or, they might not be :-) Could they be singing the song but not actually living it?

 

"Authenticating enlightenment" is an interesting rabbit hole IMO. In other words there's always someone or something else attempting to tell you what you experienced That's just properly insane IMO. And to think it's perpetuated all the way to what is touted by some as the "highest" realization. Hahahaha.

 

Still, I found Dan Ingram's stuff very useful. Why? Why did I find a need to go seek out maps for this stuff? Oh yeah, because I found it scary as hell. Yes I found maps reassuring. What to say to that?

 

What if it really is just a recurrent (if not somewhat rare but getting less-so all the time) human experience? Wouldn't that point to it being a very natural part of any human life? What if it happens all the time but people miss it or imagine they are going nuts? What if part of it is down to personal choice?

 

Anyway, I seem to have a bad habit of going off on tangents, but I find it interesting that one would still like to claim individuality in this process: "my enlightenment" vs "yours" or anyone else's enlightenment. Wouldn't that mean that it really wasn't/isn't "enlightenment"? Don't we hear those "ego-less" people wax lyrical about enlightenment being this definitive ending of "me"?

 

I don't buy it. Yes, one of my experiences was having "me" drop out the bottom of myself. But it came back

 

Hello Kate,

 

I think it does happen all the time, as you mentioned. As you alluded to, if we don't know what we're experiencing, I think it's hard to understand what it is. I try very hard not to argue these points, because I do feel that no one has the "in" on enlightenment. If one is happy practicing what they practice, that's fine, but I am certain that there is no need to inform someone that there is need for enlightenment. If there is one thing I've learned it's that I am the same as I have always been. These definitions are only tools to understand ourselves better. The only thing that changes is our experience and our actions. Hopefully in changing these actions our experience can be beneficial to others.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Thank you for an insightful post.

 

I don't really know anything about englightenment. What most realized humans say is that our "True Nature" is here, always. Problems start to arise for me when "I", that is Anders, think that this body and mind, that exists in time, need to do, understand or gain something to realize this. Anders does this all the time, out of habit. Mostly before I become aware of it.

 

Last year I went to Cervinia to ski. Its located at the foot of the Matterhorn. I've always wanted to see it; the ultimate mountain. The first couple of days, we were caught in a blizzard, and we were just stuck in this whiteout not seeing anything. Thing was, I felt that to really experience the mountain, I had to climb it, or ski it, be on it, to really experience it.

Thing was, the next morning, as I sat on the john, I saw out of the window, and there it was. Bright, shining, aweinspiring. I realized it had been there all the time. Even when I was not here.

As I walked over to the lifts with my skis in the morning sun, there was a lady in fir sitting on an outside cafe drinking coffee, looking at the same mountain. Its presence was there for her as it was for me. She had no less access to it than a climber that was approaching the summit. It was allready there.

 

You and I will never get enlightened. Its all about this painful project of resignation, or loss. Its not about an awakening. Its a wake up call.

 

Most people think that enlightenment is about knowing. I too unconsciously hope that Anders, the aspiring mystic, will finally, at some point in time "know" something.

But it does not work. The only thing we can do is give up. Stop. listen. Let whatever is come and annihilate you. Then there's an oppporunity to give in to this ongoing process of loss.

When Anders the extreme skier, climber and escapist mystic realized that he was not going to "become" part of any Matterhorn, in some primordial act of union, did he understand that Anders, did not really matter in this picture. Actually, he was just in the way, and he had to die. He could not climb it, ski it and come home to talk about it. Then he would have killed the Matterhorn, and it would have been lost forever in oblivion. Anders had to go home.

Only then could he slide around and appreciate it, just being there.

 

Saying this much is also saying too much. Just forget about it, and forget about enlightenment. Don't spoil the big joke.

 

h

 

 

Hello Hagar,

 

I enjoyed your post. I used to live in Washington State, from where I was I could look out my window and see Mount Ranier (on a clear day). At first it was very awe inspiring, but after awhile, the more you see it, the less amazing it seems. It's taken nearly a decade in Florida, a land without mountains, to really appreciate it again.

 

I understand what you mean by just forgetting about "It", allowing "It" to become what it's intended to be, but I think even doing nothing, is doing something. Wu Wei after all. I think for many people it takes time to realize that they need to let go, to just experience things, to understand the moment for what it is.

 

I also think that, as Kate pointed out, there is no end of me, that those moments when I believe me to be gone are fleeting, I will always return. The Hindu and Buddhist refer to this, Samadhi as it's called. The notion of self is eradicated and in it's place is the absence of self, the realization that everything that exists is only an illusion. Again, this realization is fleeting, it fades in time, and in order to continue to appreciate it, one must experience it again and again. For me, this inability to permanently annihilate self is evidence that the self does exist.

 

I also don't necessarily believe that life is suffering, but rather that suffering is part of life. In my opinion, one should place no more importance on it, than any other experience. In fact I think it is much more beneficial to understand that all things are pleasing, for everywhere that suffering resides, there resides pleasure as well, for without it, suffering cannot exist. If one is to eradicate suffering, one must also eradicate pleasure. If one is able to do this, then I'm not certain how, for something cannot not-exist, unless something also exists, at least in my opinion. Notions of annihilation are very much illusions, just as this world is an illusion. Of course it's important to remember without the reality, the illusion itself can't exist.

 

I do understand what you are saying, and I think I heard Buddha say it once, in so many words. Simply "forgetaboutit". If we can do this, then I agree, we will experience it without even trying.

 

Anyways, thank you,

 

 

Aaron

[Otis]

Hello Deci Belle,

 

Thanks for your response. I think we are very much saying the same things. I think many people view existence and non-existence, self and no-self, as separate things, but I don't think that's so. I think they are the same thing, like computer code, one is a zero, the other a one, without both reality cannot be designed. Although both may seem to be different things, the zero and one are intricately linked in the same experience, they just exist at different spectrums of that experience.

 

Aaron

Agreed. Left and right are not opposite sides of me, because they are not opposed. They are necessary complements. Even the things in the universe that seem the most like opposites (such as matter and antimatter) are more accurately described as symmetries. One needs the other.

[xabir2005]

Hello Hagar,

 

I enjoyed your post. I used to live in Washington State, from where I was I could look out my window and see Mount Ranier (on a clear day). At first it was very awe inspiring, but after awhile, the more you see it, the less amazing it seems. It's taken nearly a decade in Florida, a land without mountains, to really appreciate it again.

 

I understand what you mean by just forgetting about "It", allowing "It" to become what it's intended to be, but I think even doing nothing, is doing something. Wu Wei after all. I think for many people it takes time to realize that they need to let go, to just experience things, to understand the moment for what it is.

 

I also think that, as Kate pointed out, there is no end of me, that those moments when I believe me to be gone are fleeting, I will always return. The Hindu and Buddhist refer to this, Samadhi as it's called. The notion of self is eradicated and in it's place is the absence of self, the realization that everything that exists is only an illusion. Again, this realization is fleeting, it fades in time, and in order to continue to appreciate it, one must experience it again and again. For me, this inability to permanently annihilate self is evidence that the self does exist.

Your statements have a lot of misunderstanding. It is totally possible and I am speaking from experience... to permanently end the illusion of self.

 

Yes, you are right in that through the power of concentration and absorption, you may temporarily send the sense of self into abeyance, in a state of samadhi.

 

But samadhi is NOT enlightenment.

 

Enlightenment is a permanent realization about the nature of reality - in the seeing there is just the seen, no seer, in the hearing there is just the heard, no hearer, in the thinking there is just thoughts, no thinker.

 

Having direct realization of this ends the illusion of self forever. This is not an experience that has entry and exit - you do not enter this, and you can never exit/escape this 'condition' - because always already, there is no self, so there is no self to remain, no self to cease, no self to [insert token].

 

This needs to be realized.

 

So yes, there is no 'permanently annihilating self', since annihilating self implies there is a self, but if you realize no self, then it is seen that there is no such self to remain or cease... the illusion is seen through and what is seen cannot be unseen.

 

This is vastly different from a temporary samadhi state. A samadhi state does not bring realization.

I also don't necessarily believe that life is suffering, but rather that suffering is part of life.

"Life is suffering" is one of the most misquoted thing attributed to Buddha. The Buddha did not say this. He taught that there is suffering, he didn't say life is suffering or there can only be suffering.

 

Please read this article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html

 

...You've probably heard the rumor that "Life is suffering" is Buddhism's first principle, the Buddha's first noble truth. It's a rumor with good credentials, spread by well-respected academics and Dharma teachers alike, but a rumor nonetheless. The truth about the noble truths is far more interesting. The Buddha taught four truths — not one — about life: There is suffering, there is a cause for suffering, there is an end of suffering, and there is a path of practice that puts an end to suffering. These truths, taken as a whole, are far from pessimistic. They're a practical, problem-solving approach — the way a doctor approaches an illness, or a mechanic a faulty engine. You identify a problem and look for its cause. You then put an end to the problem by eliminating the cause...

 

...Other discourses show that the problem isn't with body and feelings in and of themselves. They themselves aren't suffering. The suffering lies in clinging to them. In his definition of the first noble truth, the Buddha summarizes all types of suffering under the phrase, "the five aggregates of clinging": clinging to physical form (including the body), feelings, perceptions, thought constructs, and consciousness. However, when the five aggregates are free from clinging, he tells us, they lead to long-term benefit and happiness.

 

So the first noble truth, simply put, is that clinging is suffering. It's because of clinging that physical pain becomes mental pain. It's because of clinging that aging, illness, and death cause mental distress. The paradox here is that, in clinging to things, we don't trap them or get them under our control. Instead, we trap ourselves. When we realize our captivity, we naturally search for a way out. And this is where it's so important that the first noble truth not say that "Life is suffering." If life were suffering, where would we look for an end to suffering? We'd be left with nothing but death and annihilation. But when the actual truth is that clinging is suffering, we simply have to look for the clinging and eliminate its causes...

In fact I think it is much more beneficial to understand that all things are pleasing, for everywhere that suffering resides, there resides pleasure as well, for without it, suffering cannot exist.

This isn't true, suffering does not require pleasure. Also, suffering is not displeasure. Unpleasurable sensations can arise yet without mental aversion or suffering.

Notions of annihilation are very much illusions, just as this world is an illusion. Of course it's important to remember without the reality, the illusion itself can't exist.

The world is not an illusion, and there is no reality apart from the world. But this not to say that the world is real (inherently, independently, permanently existing) - there is no independent existence of the world of its own as all appearances dependently originate without anything that can be pinned down as having inherent reality.

 

The world is like an illusion, but not an illusion, looks there but isn't really there.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.

Edited May 11, 2011 by xabir2005

[Otis]

Excellent post, Xabir!