Do we require guidance to reach enlightenment?

[Simple_Jack]

Hello Xabir,

 

I am sticking to the topic of stillness, which has nothing to do with "I am", but rather "I am not". When you can explain to me what stillness is, then I can accept that you have experienced it, but so far you are off the mark.

 

Aaron

 

Contemplate the ultimate void

Remain truly in quiscence

All things are together in action,

But I look into their non-action.

Things are unceasingly moving and restless.

Yet each one is proceeding back to the origin

-Tao Te Ching

 

In order to subdue the mind act with non-action.

Of movement and stillness, be aware of thier origin;

There is no work to do, much less someone to seek.

Responding to phenomena, you must be unconfused.

When unconfused, the nature will stabilize by itself.

-Excerpt from Lu Dong Bin's Hundred Character Tablet

 

Let's not stick to just stillness or movement...When in an state of movement (thoughts, etc.) or stillness do you know the "patriarch"? Are you clear and unconfused in matters, even when dealing with the hustle and bustle of the outside world? Do you niether long for stillness nor have disdain of movement? Who is "this" enagaged in stillness or movement?

Edited September 14, 2011 by Simple_Jack

[Pero]

Indeed. Stillness can just be stagnant and a person can practice stillness all his life but not realize anything.

 

For there to be realization one has to engage some form of contemplative investigation or insight practice.

"Realization" is meaningless also. Because there are many kinds of realizations of siddhis for example and certainly you could get them with stillness but you couldn't attain the supreme siddhi - Buddhahood, with stillness alone (or Arhatship), like you say.

[ion]

This was posted in another thread and I felt that it didn't really go along with that thread's purpose, so I chose to create a new thread for those who might wish to discuss this topic.

 

Recently I have had a few experiences that have shaken my understanding of the world, the "void", heartmind, and enlightenment. For that matter it has shaken my understanding of compassion and other things as well, however this thread isn't so much about that, but rather I use this as an example of how it might be useful to shake off old beliefs to gain a greater awareness of what is and isn't.

 

The common consensus of most people is that in order to gain an awareness of the "truth" one must be taught or guided. (Please keep in mind that I use the word truth only so that we can understand the premise of my comments within a certain context.) I do not agree with this entirely, but in all honesty I cannot discount that certain ideas led me to a greater experience, but I also must say with honesty that only after I gave up those beliefs was I able to achieve an even greater degree of awareness, one that called into question and discounted many of the "truths" I held.

 

From my experience what I can say without doubt is that every man and woman, regardless of who they are or where they come from, has the ability to achieve this awareness, that it requires no guidance, but in some instances may require prompting, simply because many of us are led to believe that something other than, or more, doesn't exist, and rather what is true and real is what we've been taught to believe is true and real.

 

I also have come to understand that religions, regardless of the religion, are intricately linked to morality and in most cases a selfish desire for enlightenment in order to gain something that one believes will grant them some escape from death or suffering in this life. I can say from my own experience that neither of these is true in the context that people wish to believe it to be, but rather there is more to it than simply that. Part of my greater understanding stems from understanding the true nature of me as I've been taught to view me, and also what I was before I was born and still am. When one sees who they were from the beginning then the desire to continue to be the person they are fades away, because they understand the transient nature of this being they have become.

 

Anyone who sets forth and simply meditates, not on themselves, or truth, but simply sits and stills the mind will come to this revelation. I have no doubts of this. The problem is that we are tricked into believing that things require purpose, when in fact, in this case, purpose is the greatest hindrance. One can only achieve a greater degree of awareness when they understand that there is no purpose for it, that this state is already within them and exists, they only need to be made aware of it.

 

With that said, I know of nothing else to say, so I will leave it at that. I hope that this discussion will bear fruit. Be kind to others or bare your fangs, it doesn't matter, nor will it change what is, so please feel free to discuss this as you choose to.

 

Aaron

 

P.S. I will only say I'm enlightened if you say I'm not. <insert smiley face>

 

Enlightenment is a tricky thing to define. I'd say what it boils down to is loss of cultural imprints, yet it is a realative term, and is subject to what you were, and to the comparable people around you.

 

It is not about learning anything or obtaining a belief...

 

Do we need a guide to reach total enlightenment. I don't think there is anyone qualified to tell us that but I would suspect that the answer is yes and no.

 

To rely entirely on ones self would be egotistical, you do need to look beyond your self. You can look to anyone or anything to observe the Tao in manifestation and in it's way, but don't look to anyone for the answer.

 

My experience was awakening. I woke up to a deeper reality and saw myself as a superficial by product of the conventionally believed and experienced reality. All the titles I gave mysef were false and role playing. All my habbits and beliefs were picked up and taught. All my preferences were exploitations of natural tendencies. Et cetra et cetra...

 

So as some freedom was going on psychologicly, moraly, and ethicly there is still the habitual nature of my cultural ghost, language, posture, social skills...I have spent years working with the falling away and sluffing off of engrained beliefs by living a life of sincere devotion to removing the subjectivity from my life and perception.

 

There are areas in my life that I feel I need help in, and even a little guidance, but my mind is on the "goal" so I need no guides. I feel that for myself it would be good to join into group meditations for the guidance and fortification. I feel like I could use guidance in areas of physical cultivation, and physycal practices, yet I am on the path and no one is leading me through it.

 

I think even using psychedelic drugs can be looking for guidance, but to consider it a guide to enlightement would be foolish. Just a little guidance along the way to enlightenment.

[Jeff]

 

My experience was awakening. I woke up to a deeper reality and saw myself as a superficial by product of the conventionally believed and experienced reality. All the titles I gave mysef were false and role playing. All my habbits and beliefs were picked up and taught. All my preferences were exploitations of natural tendencies. Et cetra et cetra...

 

Could you explain in greater detail what that means and what you are telling the group?

 

Thanks.

[Informer]

Enlightenment is a tricky thing to define. I'd say what it boils down to is loss of cultural imprints, yet it is a realative term, and is subject to what you were, and to the comparable people around you.

 

 

I don't think it is tricky, but impossible. Anything you can say that enlightenement is, is not what it is. It is an interpretation of what it is, either your own or of another person, or religion, or tradition, etc...

 

It can be pointed at, and some pointers are more prominent, but it still is not it.

 

Once you begin to have objective experiences of the heart-center, you may better understand what I mean.

[ion]

I don't think it is tricky, but impossible. Anything you can say that enlightenement is, is not what it is. It is an interpretation of what it is, either your own or of another person, or religion, or tradition, etc...

 

It can be pointed at, and some pointers are more prominent, but it still is not it.

 

Once you begin to have objective experiences of the heart-center, you may better understand what I mean.

 

yet it is a realative term, and is subject to what you were, and to the comparable people around you.

 

 

Enlightenment to some people, is not enlightenmnet to others.

 

If you were thinking less of your own definitions and listening to the sentiment in the op, then you might see how what you took out of context from my post was merely an irrelevent clich'e that meanns, it cant be defined and you must first decide at what level you are pointing to or at.

 

I've found that what somepeople consider to be enlightened are mere fixations on things that for me were just passing thoughts.

 

Peace-

Edited September 14, 2011 by ion

[ion]

My experience was awakening. I woke up to a deeper reality and saw myself as a superficial by product of the conventionally believed and experienced reality. All the titles I gave mysef were false and role playing. All my habbits and beliefs were picked up and taught. All my preferences were exploitations of natural tendencies. Et cetra et cetra...

 

 

Could you explain in greater detail what that means and what you are telling the group?

 

Thanks.

 

I could try.

 

I say "awakened", because to me enlightenment is something seekers strive for. Where as awakening, for me, is a more suitable term because the experience was much more organic and unexpected.

 

I had had a copy of the Tao te ching and read a little about modern occidental philosophy. I had insights and assimilated deep concepts. I was intellegent and could sound philosophicly adept or so people told me. I was 25 years old or something and considered my self a spiritual person yet was not on any path. I still had the christian imprint and belief in God, and was very much a product of the world around me despite my interest.

 

I got married and had a child and these roles started erupting in me, all the preconditioning that was done with my participation from the day I was born on rose as a dominating consciousness. The father and husband I had assimilated in my life germinated when the conditions were right. During all that time was emotionally rough for me, I was at a real low point and and had become a slave to emotion. I started to realise that things triggered consciousness and that consciousness controled thought and emotion. I started to realize also that there seemed to be a cosmic order, a way to everything in the universe.

 

Also going on at the same time I had been fighting off a certain realization that was at conflict with the christian imprint within me (which was the core of my universal view)and at some point I couldn't fight it any more...all around the same time period I was realizing things and also at the same time the infrastructure of my ruling consciousness collapsed and I woke up.

 

The sustained and believed reality around us is a myth, our opinions and beliefs about ourselves and those around us are myth. The world is in a prison of its own delusion and it is the belief in that delusion that is perpetuating us to our demise and the right action to take is renunciation and to disrobe from your cutural clothing which ever culture that is and to become the person you were born as.

 

It seems that to become "enlightened" you must first "wake up" and then begins the task of clearing out the mess by letting go and not holding on. It is a process which leads to clarity, contment, nonattatchment and compassion.

 

 

edit-gowing up in any known society, we both block certain capacities and potentiels we are born with so they never seem to arise, artistic abilities, psychic sensitivities, emotional sensitivities, all sorts of stuff that we block out in order to fit in and function in society. We also take on things that very much are not us. WHen one awakes the blocks begin to go, with your help, and the aquired falseness begins to fall, with your help and realization.

 

We also take on all sorts of beliefs that cause us to not see certain things, to not understand things. The conditioned percieving mind will remain blind and in ignorance in order that its held beliefs do not get challenged because the beliefs are at the core of our identities. Our Identities and egos will fight to stay alive at your universal selfs expense. It is like the beliefs are parasites that feed of of us and they dont want us to see the truth or know ourselves. Waking up is the begining of the end of all that, it is to be reborn in ways.

Edited September 14, 2011 by ion

[Jeff]

It seems that to become "enlightened" you must first "wake up" and then begins the task of clearing out the mess by letting go and not holding on. It is a process which leads to clarity, contment, nonattatchment and compassion.

 

Thanks. Sounds like we have a very similar background. Three kids for me...

 

By "wake up", do you mean perceived "oneness" or more "witness" with perceived separation from thoughts/desires?

 

And in "clearing out the mess", do you still experience Anger (or irritation )?

 

Finally, have you found a direct correlation between "cleaning out the mess" and energy/tan tiens/chakras?

 

Thanks.

[Aaron]

"I do not think there is anything wrong or right with following a tradition, just as there is nothing wrong or right with giving up those traditions, rather my point is that they are not needed in order to attain insight and awareness. If one seeks within they will find it, if they practice the three virtues of clarity of mind, dedication, and meditation. Dedication should not be confused with attachment, but rather a knowledge of there being something more and the practice of acquiring awareness.

 

Then how come you aren't applyng the teachings yourself in order to really see if they are bullshit or not, instead of totally dismissing them?

 

"So again, I will not say Buddhism is bad, or any other religion, because bad and good do not exist, but rather that one should not follow something blindly, nor view the destination as being reached by only one path, but rather we should remember that if the destination is really there, then no matter how we get there, we will know when we arrive."

 

Then why are you always going around accusing everyone who has proven the teachings for themselves that they are brainwashed? Why go around telling people on this board that being "free" from one's afflictive states, attachments, and obscurations is not possible and cannot be attained?

 

This is why in that spat between us in that one thread I said to get rid of all your current held beliefs, to drop them, and to really dedicate with mind and body to find out if these things that the different religions around the world are talking about are true. To really go beyond your current outlook based on conceptual constructs and rendered beliefs based on emotional opinions; to really go beyond and prove this stuff for yourself. To get as far as you can in this lifetime in determining once and for all the question of life and death.

 

Hello Jack,

 

I'm not sure what to say except that you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, and I have no idea how I could make you understand. Since you don't need to understand, nor really change your ideas, I wont argue with you. If I debate with Xabir it's because I sense he understands this intellectually and simply needs prompting to understand it experientially. I know he differs in opinion and that's fine as well, if he chooses to stay the course, there's no skin off my nose or the universe's for that matter. It is what it is.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Enlightenment is a tricky thing to define. I'd say what it boils down to is loss of cultural imprints, yet it is a realative term, and is subject to what you were, and to the comparable people around you.

 

It is not about learning anything or obtaining a belief...

 

Do we need a guide to reach total enlightenment. I don't think there is anyone qualified to tell us that but I would suspect that the answer is yes and no.

 

To rely entirely on ones self would be egotistical, you do need to look beyond your self. You can look to anyone or anything to observe the Tao in manifestation and in it's way, but don't look to anyone for the answer.

 

My experience was awakening. I woke up to a deeper reality and saw myself as a superficial by product of the conventionally believed and experienced reality. All the titles I gave mysef were false and role playing. All my habbits and beliefs were picked up and taught. All my preferences were exploitations of natural tendencies. Et cetra et cetra...

 

So as some freedom was going on psychologicly, moraly, and ethicly there is still the habitual nature of my cultural ghost, language, posture, social skills...I have spent years working with the falling away and sluffing off of engrained beliefs by living a life of sincere devotion to removing the subjectivity from my life and perception.

 

There are areas in my life that I feel I need help in, and even a little guidance, but my mind is on the "goal" so I need no guides. I feel that for myself it would be good to join into group meditations for the guidance and fortification. I feel like I could use guidance in areas of physical cultivation, and physycal practices, yet I am on the path and no one is leading me through it.

 

I think even using psychedelic drugs can be looking for guidance, but to consider it a guide to enlightement would be foolish. Just a little guidance along the way to enlightenment.

 

 

Hello Ion,

 

I think we're talking about two different types of "awareness", intellectual and experiential. You had an intellectual awakening, a knowledge of the nature of the universe on an intellectual level that allowed you to view things in an unbiased manner. I would wager this is the experience most Taoists have in regards to "awakening", and Buddhists for that matter. When I talk about enlightenment, I am talking about an experiential awareness, one that is beyond rationalization, but stems from an awareness of the source of everything, the void, the light, whatever you want to call it. When one experiences this then they understand the connection between all things, as well as the transient nature of all things. Compassion is not based solely on the desire to liberate, but also because one is aware of the synchronistic experience of all things.

 

Those who have only had an intellectual awakening will lean towards liberation (imo), not realizing the synchronistic nature on a truly experiential level. There is nothing wrong or right about this, rather it is just an observation I have made. An intellectual awareness is better than no awareness at all, so it should not be diminished, rather I am merely stating that there is another nature to awareness often missed, because it is mistaken for an intellectual awareness, or assumed to not truly exist.

 

This experiential awareness requires no guidance to achieve, because it is merely becoming aware of who you are, not just the you that you have been taught to be, but the eternal you. I hope this helps to clarify a bit of what I am talking about.

 

Aaron

[Simple_Jack]

Hello Jack,

 

I'm not sure what to say except that you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, and I have no idea how I could make you understand. Since you don't need to understand, nor really change your ideas, I wont argue with you. If I debate with Xabir it's because I sense he understands this intellectually and simply needs prompting to understand it experientially. I know he differs in opinion and that's fine as well, if he chooses to stay the course, there's no skin off my nose or the universe's for that matter. It is what it is.

 

Aaron

The you haven't really addressed my or his posts stating that a mundane state where there is no-thoughts is not complete practice and that clinging to this state of inert "clarity" is frowned on. For someone who says they have "studied Zen" would know that this school also does not just advocate "stillness," but also the application of "insight" or "prajna" in order to know the nature of things.

[Simple_Jack]

Hello Ion,

 

I think we're talking about two different types of "awareness", intellectual and experiential. You had an intellectual awakening, a knowledge of the nature of the universe on an intellectual level that allowed you to view things in an unbiased manner. I would wager this is the experience most Taoists have in regards to "awakening", and Buddhists for that matter. When I talk about enlightenment, I am talking about an experiential awareness, one that is beyond rationalization, but stems from an awareness of the source of everything, the void, the light, whatever you want to call it. When one experiences this then they understand the connection between all things, as well as the transient nature of all things. Compassion is not based solely on the desire to liberate, but also because one is aware of the synchronistic experience of all things.

 

Those who have only had an intellectual awakening will lean towards liberation (imo), not realizing the synchronistic nature on a truly experiential level. There is nothing wrong or right about this, rather it is just an observation I have made. An intellectual awareness is better than no awareness at all, so it should not be diminished, rather I am merely stating that there is another nature to awareness often missed, because it is mistaken for an intellectual awareness, or assumed to not truly exist.

 

This experiential awareness requires no guidance to achieve, because it is merely becoming aware of who you are, not just the you that you have been taught to be, but the eternal you. I hope this helps to clarify a bit of what I am talking about.

 

Aaron

There's no such thing as "intellectual" or "experiential" awareness. You still haven't addressed my earlier posts on why you feel that those who have proven the teachings through direct experience are brainwashed or is just an intellectual understanding, while you continually tell people that your experience which is somehow truly "experiential," is not intellectual solely because it is somehow not based "on prior beliefs."

[ion]

Hello Ion,

 

I think we're talking about two different types of "awareness", intellectual and experiential. You had an intellectual awakening, a knowledge of the nature of the universe on an intellectual level that allowed you to view things in an unbiased manner. I would wager this is the experience most Taoists have in regards to "awakening", and Buddhists for that matter. When I talk about enlightenment, I am talking about an experiential awareness, one that is beyond rationalization, but stems from an awareness of the source of everything, the void, the light, whatever you want to call it. When one experiences this then they understand the connection between all things, as well as the transient nature of all things. Compassion is not based solely on the desire to liberate, but also because one is aware of the synchronistic experience of all things.

 

Those who have only had an intellectual awakening will lean towards liberation (imo), not realizing the synchronistic nature on a truly experiential level. There is nothing wrong or right about this, rather it is just an observation I have made. An intellectual awareness is better than no awareness at all, so it should not be diminished, rather I am merely stating that there is another nature to awareness often missed, because it is mistaken for an intellectual awareness, or assumed to not truly exist.

 

This experiential awareness requires no guidance to achieve, because it is merely becoming aware of who you are, not just the you that you have been taught to be, but the eternal you. I hope this helps to clarify a bit of what I am talking about.

 

Aaron

 

Yes intellectual awakening. Also social and metaphysical. I began to understand what makes people do what they do, how people came to be and from what we came.

 

Quite literally I began to see through time on many levels. Precognition, psychic sensitivities of many kinds and an understanding of where all things come from to where as though I understand the fundamentals of creation as though I was taught them culturally but there is no one around to have taught me.

 

I have a more complex understanding of the unfolding of awareness, force, space, and time, and the primal interplay of the male and female principles then anyone I've ever seen and it came to me through awakening. In the same way that all things spring out of non-existence

 

I some how came to know the orgins of many things, and the interdependancy of everything. I was completely transformed mind, body, and soul.

 

Since then life and mind has been a constant transition.

 

I had began to understand things before then, things about void and light, and I have met others who have, but it was the awakening that freed me from bondage and delusion, I was under. Through out the transition I have realizations, mini "awakenings", to the point that it hardly seems an event anymore, and all of it has been apart of the one transition which is the path.

 

What started as visions of void and undulating, expanding points of light for me over (10 years ago) before my awakening has elaborated into an understanding of mind, universe, spirit, and reality that has become basicly an alternate body of knowledge that explains the orgins and way of the universe, spirit and mind. I sometimes feel as though I had a belief system implanted and it has elaborated and colonized my mind. It is my reference point for everything

Edited September 14, 2011 by ion

[Aaron]

The you haven't really addressed my or his posts stating that a mundane state where there is no-thoughts is not complete practice and that clinging to this state of inert "clarity" is frowned on. For someone who says they have "studied Zen" would know that this school also does not just advocate "stillness," but also the application of "insight" or "prajna" in order to know the nature of things.

 

For the sake of clarity, Zen is not the answer in my opinion, nor is Buddhism. There is no karma for instance, at least not from my experience, (although I did lean towards believing in karma at one time), nor is there a wheel of dharma. When I die, nothing of the "I" I have become in this life will pass on. The notion of karma is simply a way to encourage people to behave, a softer gentler form of sin. If one wishes to believe in these things, that is fine, but I allude to the notion that if one becomes intellectually enlightened regarding these "truths" that one should examine the nature of that "truth's" arising, because more often than not, it arises from a lesson taught somewhere along the road to that awakening, rather than a spontaneous understanding based on one's own experience with the void, nothingness, stillness, source, etc.

 

Also, because the topic was headed there anyways, I am not of the school that believes one who is awakened must "liberate" the masses, because this is simply an erroneous belief that something is wrong with the masses. There is nothing wrong with the masses at all, in fact the only thing they need to do is eat, sleep, shit, and live, nothing else. They are already aware and some may get a sense of this some day and seek more, but most will not. There is no need to encourage this, although there is certainly nothing wrong with encouraging it either.

 

My experience has taught me that there really is no such thing as right or wrong. That these notions of morality are simply transient constructs of the social mind. Within each of us lies the capacity to understand the idea of necessary action and when one can do that, then morality becomes obsolete. Now the good news is that the notion of necessary action is achieved along the way to "true" awakening or enlightenment, so one does not need to be "awakened" to understand necessary action.

 

The irony is that in fact none of this is necessary. Most of what we do isn't necessary. We don't need to save the world, for the world is not in need of saving, it merely is what it is. If we begin to understand the notion of necessary action then that desire to save the world will evaporate.

 

So why do I bother explaining any of this? Because there's no harm in explaining it and in the end my experience may benefit others.

 

Aaron

[Jeff]

 

I think we're talking about two different types of "awareness", intellectual and experiential. You had an intellectual awakening, a knowledge of the nature of the universe on an intellectual level that allowed you to view things in an unbiased manner. I would wager this is the experience most Taoists have in regards to "awakening", and Buddhists for that matter. When I talk about enlightenment, I am talking about an experiential awareness, one that is beyond rationalization, but stems from an awareness of the source of everything, the void, the light, whatever you want to call it. When one experiences this then they understand the connection between all things, as well as the transient nature of all things. Compassion is not based solely on the desire to liberate, but also because one is aware of the synchronistic experience of all things.

 

Aaron,

 

Could you further describe (or point me to a post of) your current experience/perception? Also, do you know (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that "you" are eternal? Or, rather that you are part of the "transient nature of all things" and ultimately are just a temporary smile on the blip of Tao?

 

Thanks.

[Aaron]

Yes intellectual awakening. Also social and metaphysical. I began to understand what makes people do what they do, how people came to be and from what we came.

 

Quite literally I began to see through time on many levels. Precognition, psychic sensitivities of many kinds and an understanding of where all things come from to where as though I understand the fundamentals of creation as though I was taught them culturally but there is no one around to have taught me.

 

I have a more complex understanding of the unfolding of awareness, force, space, and time, and the primal interplay of the male and female principles then anyone I've ever seen and it came to me through awakening. In the same way that all things spring out of non-existence

 

I some how came to know the orgins of many things, and the interdependancy of everything. I was completely transformed mind, body, and soul.

 

Since then life and mind has been a constant transition.

 

I had began to understand things before then, things about void and light, and I have met others who have, but it was the awakening that freed me from bondage and delusion, I was under. Through out the transition I have realizations, mini "awakenings", to the point that it hardly seems an event anymore, and all of it has been apart of the one transition which is the path.

 

What started as visions of void and undulating, expanding points of light for me over (10 years ago) before my awakening has elaborated into an understanding of mind, universe, spirit, and reality that has become basicly an alternate body of knowledge that explains the orgins and way of the universe, spirit and mind. I sometimes feel as though I had a belief system implanted and it has elaborated and colonized my mind. It is my reference point for everything

 

Great, then can you tell us the nature of the void and light? Rarely do I have the chance to ask an omniscient person these questions, so please forgive me if I am presumptuous. I simply find it interesting that with all your psychic potential you still choose to speak to us with typed words, wouldn't it be more practical to telepathically contact us? Or is there some kind of taboo related to the invasion of the mind? I'm not sure how the super-true-enlightened masters operate, so forgive me again if I am confused.

 

Aaron

[Simple_Jack]

For the sake of clarity, Zen is not the answer in my opinion, nor is Buddhism. There is no karma for instance, at least not from my experience, (although I did lean towards believing in karma at one time), nor is there a wheel of dharma. When I die, nothing of the "I" I have become in this life will pass on. The notion of karma is simply a way to encourage people to behave, a softer gentler form of sin. If one wishes to believe in these things, that is fine, but I allude to the notion that if one becomes intellectually enlightened regarding these "truths" that one should examine the nature of that "truth's" arising, because more often than not, it arises from a lesson taught somewhere along the road to that awakening, rather than a spontaneous understanding based on one's own experience with the void, nothingness, stillness, source, etc.

 

Also, because the topic was headed there anyways, I am not of the school that believes one who is awakened must "liberate" the masses, because this is simply an erroneous belief that something is wrong with the masses. There is nothing wrong with the masses at all, in fact the only thing they need to do is eat, sleep, shit, and live, nothing else. They are already aware and some may get a sense of this some day and seek more, but most will not. There is no need to encourage this, although there is certainly nothing wrong with encouraging it either.

 

My experience has taught me that there really is no such thing as right or wrong. That these notions of morality are simply transient constructs of the social mind. Within each of us lies the capacity to understand the idea of necessary action and when one can do that, then morality becomes obsolete. Now the good news is that the notion of necessary action is achieved along the way to "true" awakening or enlightenment, so one does not need to be "awakened" to understand necessary action.

 

The irony is that in fact none of this is necessary. Most of what we do isn't necessary. We don't need to save the world, for the world is not in need of saving, it merely is what it is. If we begin to understand the notion of necessary action then that desire to save the world will evaporate.

 

So why do I bother explaining any of this? Because there's no harm in explaining it and in the end my experience may benefit others.

 

Aaron

"For the sake of clarity, Zen is not the answer in my opinion, nor is Buddhism. There is no karma for instance, at least not from my experience, (although I did lean towards believing in karma at one time), nor is there a wheel of dharma. When I die, nothing of the "I" I have become in this life will pass on. The notion of karma is simply a way to encourage people to behave, a softer gentler form of sin. If one wishes to believe in these things, that is fine, but I allude to the notion that if one becomes intellectually enlightened regarding these "truths" that one should examine the nature of that "truth's" arising, because more often than not, it arises from a lesson taught somewhere along the road to that awakening, rather than a spontaneous understanding based on one's own experience with the void, nothingness, stillness, source, etc."

 

This is what I'm talking about, when I posted these comments:

 

"This is why in that spat between us in that one thread I said to get rid of all your current held beliefs, to drop them, and to really dedicate with mind and body to find out if these things that the different religions around the world are talking about are true. To really go beyond your current outlook based on conceptual constructs and rendered beliefs based on emotional opinions; to really go beyond and prove this stuff for yourself. To get as far as you can in this lifetime in determining once and for all the question of life and death."

 

"Having stillness in one's mind is just another functioning of the sixth consciousness (faculty of discrimination.) Just cultivating stillness as you're advocating is not enough in order to realize "who" or "what" is ultimately experiencing these states of quiet and stillness or movement, thoughts going through one'mind, etc,; or "who" or "what" is experiencing reality. In fact the inert "stillness," that you're talking about is akin to "Dead Tree Zen" that became a problem in the Zen school in the late Tang dynasty onwards.

 

Like I said when we went back and forth in the other thread: Samadhi is something that saints from all over the world describe in thier scriptures/teachings. So anyone who cultivates that far can experience these same states. Likewise it goes for anyone who applies insight, who can then get to the bottom of experience."

 

"My experience has taught me that there really is no such thing as right or wrong. That these notions of morality are simply transient constructs of the social mind. Within each of us lies the capacity to understand the idea of necessary action and when one can do that, then morality becomes obsolete. Now the good news is that the notion of necessary action is achieved along the way to "true" awakening or enlightenment, so one does not need to be "awakened" to understand necessary action.

 

The irony is that in fact none of this is necessary. Most of what we do isn't necessary. We don't need to save the world, for the world is not in need of saving, it merely is what it is. If we begin to understand the notion of necessary action then that desire to save the world will evaporate."

 

This is clearly someone who is talking from a purely intellectual basis. So all the teachings from various saints and sages around the world are for naught?

 

They were all trying to uplift society for the better, by focusing on showing the individuals the way towards their own inherent capacity to "transcend" there own egocentric, selfish tendencies that humans perpetuate. "Having" fundamental wisdom allows you to know how your interactions with the world, effect your surroundings through cause and effect. In fact "virtue" or "morality," is never abandoned (In fact "virtue" is exemplified in your behaviour through, a deep understanding of the interdependent nature of cause and effect) though artificial rules and codes of conduct have no absolute bearing on a person who has "seen through" the notions of "self" and "other" and has transcended their own "evil" tendencies, afflictions and obscurations; while exemplifying the "good" in themselves.

 

"So why do I bother explaining any of this? Because there's no harm in explaining it and in the end my experience may benefit others."

 

You're cheating yourself and others when you post things like this. You're cutting off people's wisdom life and potentially derailing them into thinking there is no need to cultivate "virtue," to understand cultivation principles and so forth. I still think you would benefit by going back to the basics and learning how to cultivate meditative absorption and other basic principles, in order to progress further on the path.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Simple_Jack

[Aaron]

"For the sake of clarity, Zen is not the answer in my opinion, nor is Buddhism. There is no karma for instance, at least not from my experience, (although I did lean towards believing in karma at one time), nor is there a wheel of dharma. When I die, nothing of the "I" I have become in this life will pass on. The notion of karma is simply a way to encourage people to behave, a softer gentler form of sin. If one wishes to believe in these things, that is fine, but I allude to the notion that if one becomes intellectually enlightened regarding these "truths" that one should examine the nature of that "truth's" arising, because more often than not, it arises from a lesson taught somewhere along the road to that awakening, rather than a spontaneous understanding based on one's own experience with the void, nothingness, stillness, source, etc."

 

This is what I'm talking about, when I posted these comments:

 

"This is why in that spat between us in that one thread I said to get rid of all your current held beliefs, to drop them, and to really dedicate with mind and body to find out if these things that the different religions around the world are talking about are true. To really go beyond your current outlook based on conceptual constructs and rendered beliefs based on emotional opinions; to really go beyond and prove this stuff for yourself. To get as far as you can in this lifetime in determining once and for all the question of life and death."

 

"Having stillness in one's mind is just another functioning of the sixth consciousness (faculty of discrimination.) Just cultivating stillness as you're advocating is not enough in order to realize "who" or "what" is ultimately experiencing these states of quiet and stillness or movement, thoughts going through one'mind, etc,; or "who" or "what" is experiencing reality. In fact the inert "stillness," that you're talking about is akin to "Dead Tree Zen" that became a problem in the Zen school in the late Tang dynasty onwards.

 

Like I said when we went back and forth in the other thread: Samadhi is something that saints from all over the world describe in thier scriptures/teachings. So anyone who cultivates that far can experience these same states. Likewise it goes for anyone who applies insight, who can then get to the bottom of experience."

 

"My experience has taught me that there really is no such thing as right or wrong. That these notions of morality are simply transient constructs of the social mind. Within each of us lies the capacity to understand the idea of necessary action and when one can do that, then morality becomes obsolete. Now the good news is that the notion of necessary action is achieved along the way to "true" awakening or enlightenment, so one does not need to be "awakened" to understand necessary action.

 

The irony is that in fact none of this is necessary. Most of what we do isn't necessary. We don't need to save the world, for the world is not in need of saving, it merely is what it is. If we begin to understand the notion of necessary action then that desire to save the world will evaporate."

 

This is clearly someone who is talking from a purely intellectual basis. So all the teachings from various saints and sages around the world are for naught?

 

They were all trying to uplift society for the better, by focusing on showing the individuals the way towards their own inherent capacity to "transcend" there own egocentric, selfish tendencies that humans perpetuate. "Having" fundamental wisdom allows you to know how your interactions with the world, effect your surroundings through cause and effect. In fact "virtue" or "morality," is never abandoned (In fact "virtue" is exemplified in your behaviour through, a deep understanding of the interdependent nature of cause and effect) though artificial rules and codes of conduct have no absolute bearing on a person who has "seen through" the notions of "self" and "other" and has transcended their own "evil" tendencies, afflictions and obscurations; while exemplifying the "good" in themselves.

 

"So why do I bother explaining any of this? Because there's no harm in explaining it and in the end my experience may benefit others."

 

You're cheating yourself and others when you post things like this. You're cutting off people's wisdom life and potentially derailing them into thinking there is no need to cultivate "virtue," to understand cultivation principles and so forth. I still think you would benefit by going back to the basics and learning how to cultivate meditative absorption and other basic principles, in order to progress further on the path.

 

 

Then let me be more clear, there is no need to cultivate virtue, to understand cultivation principles, and so forth. The only necessity is to eat, drink, shit, and sleep, everything else is a construct. If one seeks a degree of awareness, then that's fine, but I have no requirement to encourage it, nor is there a desire to save the world because it is the "good" thing to do, rather I do what is necessary, not what is right.

 

If there are no good men, there will be no bad men. If you cease trying to uplift society, then society will cease to descend. If you cease loving, then you will cease hating. Understand the true nature of compassion and you will understand the nature of necessary action. How do I know you are not aware, because these simple principles confound you.

 

The truth is that it is not about everyone seeing good as good, being bad, but rather that anyone seeing good as good, gives rise to bad. It is only when one can examine something for what it is, without passing judgement, but rather accepting it for what it is, that one can begin to understand necessary action.

 

Do not love and you will not hate. Do not dictate what is good and there will be no bad. The simplicity of existence is simple to understand, yet it confuses everyone. Give up your great insight, and there will be no ignorance.

 

Aaron

Edited September 14, 2011 by Twinner

[ion]

Great, then can you tell us the nature of the void and light? Rarely do I have the chance to ask an omniscient person these questions, so please forgive me if I am presumptuous. I simply find it interesting that with all your psychic potential you still choose to speak to us with typed words, wouldn't it be more practical to telepathically contact us? Or is there some kind of taboo related to the invasion of the mind? I'm not sure how the super-true-enlightened masters operate, so forgive me again if I am confused.

 

Aaron

You are the first person that I've interacted with on this website that crystalizes peoples passing statements into hard assertions for the purpose of profiling and degrading.

 

One of my psychic sensitivities is the ability to see essences and it is connected to intuition.

I eperience precognition in a way that I have no control over. It is usually about mundane seemingly meaningless event.

 

I do not read minds but I do pick up thoughts that are not mine from time to time. I seem to have acsess to what many feel is deep esoteric knowledge about the orgins of certain things. I'm not going to turn my membership into an attempt to prove of anykind of psychic abilities.

 

As I said I have psychic sensativities that is what I call them rather then call myself a "psychic" and rather then say I have abilities. Where I lack in social skills the psychic sensitivities help me to communicate.

 

Again, I am not going to fit into, or take responsibility for your preconceived notions based on your generalizations of what I implied.

 

Those are your images that you are projecting and the only foundation for any of it is in your mind, not in what I shared about myself.

 

Clearly you do not show the receptivity and unprejudiced nature of an awakened person by any of my measures. Where I gave you credit in my first response, I now have my doubts. I say this not to insult you but for the sake of any impressionable forum member.

 

Anyway, to offer a response to your question...

 

The relationship between void and light is a chasm of several "dimmensions" apart.

 

Often when invisioning the void we first come to understand it as vast infinitely empty space, but this is not true void.

 

"Void", and "light", are niether void nor light. They share the same exact self nature and it is the nature of nothingness. Void is the initial expression of the sourceless source, the light is its inverse reflection and comes into being spontaneously because of the all encompassing nature of the expression.

 

Nothingness has two sides and then it is complete, there is a posotive version of nothing and a negative version of nothing, and togeather they are true nothing, and within them there is much much more...

 

If you are one of the people that I have met that have invisioned this creation from void or light then you should understand that void is a representation of female, and light is a representation of male, or yin & Yang

Edited September 14, 2011 by ion

[xabir2005]

Hello Xabir,

 

I am sticking to the topic of stillness, which has nothing to do with "I am", but rather "I am not". When you can explain to me what stillness is, then I can accept that you have experienced it, but so far you are off the mark.

 

Aaron

I have experienced states of stillness where conceptual thought ceaes, where mind and body and sense of self are forgotten, but those are states. Stillness is just a state. And states are temporary. Insights can arise in a state of stillness but not necessarily. But for insight to arise, contemplative investigation is required. True insight is applicable in movement and stillness. Edited September 14, 2011 by xabir2005

[Birch]

I'd say that is a good start, because I don't think that "You" as an individual being can ever be enlightened.

Which I'm personally pretty happy about because otherwise (as I said to Mal) it would be *game over* and I'm not ready for that (yet).

Howevs, what IME does happen is i get a feeling of...disappearing, being a swirl in the ocean of consciousness. Sometimes I realise just how much I need you to make me "me" - that sort of thing. In fact, if my practice is anything it's to pick and choose what I'm bound by. Which IMO ain't the same as liberation. I figure liberation equals death.

[xabir2005]

If I debate with Xabir it's because I sense he understands this intellectually and simply needs prompting to understand it experientially.

Nothing that I said is understood intellectually. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

[xabir2005]

Xabir2005,

 

Thank you for your detailed description. Your words to describe it are different, but very consistent and resonate with what others who have had non-dual realization have told me. As an example, your explanation of the difference between level 5 and 7, others have described as the difference between "oneness" and "wholeness". The trick is translating perspective.

 

It is difficult to describe a direct correlation to the steps. Unlike most here, I did not start out on "conscious" path, so there was no "defined beginning". Everything is always just "normal", even when things happen. I am just a guy, who was just trying to be a good father & husband, when my head started vibrating. My "path" has been sort of just "feel the flow" and go with/surrender to it. All the problems start, when I try to "improve" what is happening. More insight comes to me from reading the "Dhammapada" or "Tao Te Ching" then just energy practices.

 

My feeling anger question was relevant (sorry, I missed your earlier post, only been a member for two weeks), because I have found that when Buddha said "drop anger & desires", they really do go away. Gone (as in does not compute ). Energy experience vary (and may be mind games), but experiencing steps of peace, joy, loss of anger & desire directly impact your existence (and give you the energy stuff for free ).

 

To me, level 2 and 3 are the same thing. Your description of level 3 is just an "experience" to help with the understanding. I have found that everything and nothing are just two sides of the same coin. From my discussion with others, it seems to be that either can come first as a perspective, dependent on your perceived point of view. I have experienced "oneness" in life for a few minutes a couple times, but it is not stable and I am not sure that it the same as others describe. Hard to define and agree on what is "oneness"...

 

In general, I don't worry about it at all. No "desire" for enlightenment. More an intellectual curiosity where the flow is drifting...

 

Overall, it is quiet and pretty much just smiles... Still stuff to clean out, but the peace & joy grow. Lost anger somewhere along the way and probably would not have noticed other than it drives my wife crazy...

 

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Also, if you experience energy/chakras, I would be interested in asking a few followup questions relative to the stages.

 

I see, thanks for sharing your experiences. I am glad you are seeing a lessening of those afflictions.

 

Do you say that those nondual experiences you had are still experiences and not permanent realizations?

[Jeff]

I see, thanks for sharing your experiences. I am glad you are seeing a lessening of those afflictions.

 

Do you say that those nondual experiences you had are still experiences and not permanent realizations?

 

Yes, non-duality is still an experience. During meditation and a couple of times during normal daily activities.

 

Do you still feel distinct chakras/tan tiens? Or, does it feel more like an unified field?

 

Thanks.

[Aaron]

You are the first person that I've interacted with on this website that crystalizes peoples passing statements into hard assertions for the purpose of profiling and degrading.

 

One of my psychic sensitivities is the ability to see essences and it is connected to intuition.

I eperience precognition in a way that I have no control over. It is usually about mundane seemingly meaningless event.

 

I do not read minds but I do pick up thoughts that are not mine from time to time. I seem to have acsess to what many feel is deep esoteric knowledge about the orgins of certain things. I'm not going to turn my membership into an attempt to prove of anykind of psychic abilities.

 

As I said I have psychic sensativities that is what I call them rather then call myself a "psychic" and rather then say I have abilities. Where I lack in social skills the psychic sensitivities help me to communicate.

 

Again, I am not going to fit into, or take responsibility for your preconceived notions based on your generalizations of what I implied.

 

Those are your images that you are projecting and the only foundation for any of it is in your mind, not in what I shared about myself.

 

Clearly you do not show the receptivity and unprejudiced nature of an awakened person by any of my measures. Where I gave you credit in my first response, I now have my doubts. I say this not to insult you but for the sake of any impressionable forum member.

 

Anyway, to offer a response to your question...

 

The relationship between void and light is a chasm of several "dimmensions" apart.

 

Often when invisioning the void we first come to understand it as vast infinitely empty space, but this is not true void.

 

"Void", and "light", are niether void nor light. They share the same exact self nature and it is the nature of nothingness. Void is the initial expression of the sourceless source, the light is its inverse reflection and comes into being spontaneously because of the all encompassing nature of the expression.

 

Nothingness has two sides and then it is complete, there is a posotive version of nothing and a negative version of nothing, and togeather they are true nothing, and within them there is much much more...

 

If you are one of the people that I have met that have invisioned this creation from void or light then you should understand that void is a representation of female, and light is a representation of male, or yin & Yang

 

Hello Ion,

 

I am not passing judgement, nor making assertions, I was merely asking you a question. As for your answer, it was wrong. You do not clearly understand Void and Light, but that's fine. I think what has happened is that you came up with a conception of these things that met your expectations. To help you I will explain this to you, in the hopes it will help you in your practice.

 

Void and Light are not separated by dimensions, they exist within the same space and all space. All things arise from stillness and stillness exists within all space. What people like to call the void is actually stillness, it is the force from which all things are given birth, the creator of light and material. Light is forever and always, material existence is forever and always, it is also light in movement. Think of it as light is still energy and material is moving energy. So the world in which we walk and think in, is actually the light in movement. In order for one to experience this light, then one must first experience stillness to become aware of it. Of course this explanation has no value, since the only real understanding of these phenomena comes from experiencing them. It is much like describing how to create a paper airplane. One might understand the basic concepts of building an airplane, but without actually building that airplane, one can never really know what the airplane actually is.

 

You are free to be psychic, but just as you offer your guidance to those about my status as a pretender, I offer my guidance to those that there are many that claim these abilities, but none that can actually prove them in practice, because the body we live in and the world we exist within does not work along those lines. My enlightenment did not grant me any knowledge of the creation or the creator, it did not grant me an audience with the Gods, nor any great psychic potential, it only allowed me insight into the nature of existence, nothing more. I will not claim anything I have not received.

 

I have however spoken to greater powers, those beings that have passed without losing their identity of self, so I know they exist, but I also know that I am no great power, nor are there any great powers present on this forum. If these great ones are awake within the material world, I know they are silent, for their duty is not to guide but to watch. If they choose to guide, it will never be to give an answer, but to encourage others to seek the answer. Now for those who are queasy with my sudden shift to the supernatural, let me assure you that there is no way I can prove this to you, so I will not ask you to believe this in any way. This is merely my experience and I accept it as that.

 

Aaron