gatito Posted January 16, 2013 There can be no experience of the Absolute as it is beyond all experience. On the other hand, the Self is the experiencing factor in every experience and thus, in a way, validates the multiplicity of experiences. The world may be full of things of great value, but if there is nobody to buy them, they have no price. The Absolute contains everything experienceable, but without the experiencer they are as nothing. That which makes the experience possible is the Absolute. That which makes it actual is the Self. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tibetan_Ice Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Hi ॐDominicusॐ Thank you so much for taking the time to write all of that. I appreciate it. ... From my initial collapse into the One from reading a Koan, I spent the next 2 years in retrospect gathering intel on the state prior to mind, and the vertical drop into the chest area. I found Ramana Maharshi discussing the Atma Nadi ...though at the other end of this Nadi there is no more nadis' ...as then everything is One. Yes, I found that one too. Another interesting thing to know. At one point, instead of this being very loose and natural practice/seeing, in the earlier days I used to force this. Well there ended up so much access energy in the head, it was impossible to sleep for days on end until doing grounding exercises. I've watched myself sleep, watch the mind churn and dreams occur from a third person point of view for a total of about three weeks. It's hard to get used to that. I'd prefer to have a normal sleep. But, most mornings now, I'm aware of my self before I wake up. Well one day, I was Observing the Observer .....but more higher up ...I'd say between pineal gland and crown, and all of a sudden, a Buddhist style mandala appeared. It was pinkish/bluish, very dynamic and 3 dimensional in nature, vivid, etc. This was a HUGE surprise because I was never a buddhist nor did I see myself as one, I was basically letting go of all labels/titles and I always assumed the mandalas were just cultural art. Literally 2 days later, I stopped by a friends house for a little Vedanta discussion, and he tells me he has a gift for me, from one friend to another, and ends up handing me a framed picture of a mandala that looks just like the one I saw when observing self. I was SHOCKED because I did not tell anyone of the experience! Is that what you call those? I've seen visions of these rectangles of colored light, like geometric patterns. They are very pretty and remind me of archetypes. I've never thought that they were mandalas. I'm guessing this info was prior to the mind...more intuitive in nature? No, I don't think so. I was capable of thinking so I suspect my coarse consciousness dissolved into the substrate and then the subtle consciousness in the substrate consciousness (alaya) took over and that is what experienced the experience. This brings up, personally, a lot of troubling questions about he state after the body drops off in physical death. I've been adamant for quite some time now that Enlightenment, the Tao, Oneness, Union w/ God ...whatever all these different paths discuss as the peak of the mountain, is the only permanent ticket from coming back here to this realm. Also it brings up the book of the dead in Buddhsim (techniques to pass the different Bardo States) and interestingly in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, there is an extremely controversial topic on the "Aerial Toll House" basically traps in the afterlife set by malevolent forces and what not ...which sound similar to the Book of the Dead. No, it wasn't the Aerial Toll House. I didn't meet any angels or see any demons at that time.. There was no other presence there. However, I have had multiple dreams when I was a kid about flying over a sea of naked 'reddish dirty' people in a place of rock, fire and semi-darkness, all standing up. The few times that I flew over them too closely, they'd grab me and try to hold me down. Really freaked me out. Theoretically speaking, I wonder if you have been embodied here previously, and reached certain meditative states, upon which when the physical vessel passed away then, the state of consciousness you were in/familiar with, was the level at which you remained for quite some time, til you figured out how to transcend and be embodied again. I don't know what released me, but I'm glad that it did.. All speculation/theory on my part, but does make me wonder. I met another fellow who said he remembered pre-existing, being told he's coming to earth to be born, telling the other units of Awareness "No ...never would I want to be born down there." ..Yet still being forced and pushed into a human fetus against his will. Brings up the possible never ending cycles of birth and death ...which personally, I would do whatever it takes not to come back here ...though that's another discussion for another time. I've heard it said that Enlightenment is only possible while embodied.... all speculation though. I think the astral/mental/causal bodies qualify as a bodies. Otherwise, why would angels and other beings appear, helping people on earth? Yes all the time. There are quite a number of features being found in this way .....sometimes I pass up myself as Subject, and find tunnels, nadi's, there seems to be a whole control center of tunnels and switches at the base of the skull where the top of the spine meets. Have you found the place at the base of the skull, somewhere near the medulla where, if you focus on it, your breathing stops dead? I have found such a place but I'm afraid. I've heard in Taoist writings that there are certain points you have to stay away from, otherwise it may kill you.. Didn't want to get rid of the body just yet. I've a friend who dropped into Atma NAdi from hard core Neti Neti practice. He basically took off camping for a year in national parks and spent all his time in Neti Neti practice. He mentioned several sign posts along the way, also mentioned shifting into pure observer state, and then eventually falling vertically down into the chest where he was No more to be found. He's also told me, that even lower still, in lower Dan Tien, that entering there is like a porthole into like the very substrate of consciousness/existence/infinity ...basically that through there, there is no longer even a Oneness ...everything ceases, Is, Isn't ...all paradoxes at the same time ...Like Absolute Reality itself has lost itself, in itself.... his words paraphrased. So for him it's Pure Observer, Atma Nadi (middle Dan Tian area about), and then Lower Dan Tian .....all realized and merged which leaves him as: "I am, I am Not, Both, and None ...all at the same time. Again his words paraphrased. (wish I can get him on here to post more, but this guy is hard core in solitude and practice) My only experience w/ Lower Dan Tian is the breath having completely stopped for super duper looooong time and then the LD became very hot and fiery, heating up the whole body. That's about it. I have experienced the 'point of view' totally separate from the body, mind, dreams etc.. Most mornings, before I wake, I am like that. Just this tiny little point of view, everything is dark and not much is happening.. I can see the little cloud of thoughts in the mind churning, the dream world appearing separately, I can hear myself snore and watch the body. The point of view is from about 2 feet above the body.. I've always thought that it was the point of view from the astral body, floating above.. but now I'm not sure.. Also I've found when watching the watcher.... Neti Neti happens on auto pilot at that point, various channels all throughout the body become electric and moving..... (have a block in my throat for some reason, something I have to figure out what the deal is) ..Also the subject sometimes expands beyond the body, sometimes just a few inches past the head, sometimes fills the room, sometimes the sky. I can go on for days with this stuff, but I'll stop here and give you a chance to respond. The mind was sparked into digressing here. Yes, I know what you mean.. I know that I once lived in India, when they had steam locomotives (ha, maybe they still do? -no offense to anyone). I spent allot of time in this wooden square building that was three stories high and the middle of the room was wide open. People would sit around the balconies and have debates of some kind. But I don't remember much about it. Gee, I was just listening to James Swartz's youtube and he has described the same thing that I've experienced several times now.. I call them 'satori moments'. Funny, I don't think that that is any basis to declare 'enlightenment'. Do you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uvp6qRQwSE He also has had an experience of coming out of the third eye and becoming everything (while taking a shower). This is not so hard to do. If you train your awareness to move around and expand into the surroundings, occaisionally you notice that you really do seem to be the car, or the tree or become the person whom you focus on. I don't think that qualifies as enlightenment. I think it is just a taste of the localized third eye action, some kind of astral projection, especially because he maintained a singular entity-like point of view, not one that is simultaneous and all-encompassing (includes all the infinite planes). I do recall that Yogananda Paramhansa Yogi had a similar experience to the one Swartz describes.. But who am I to say. Here is James Swartz's list of gurus: http://www.shiningwo.../About Me 1.htm Hmm. I'm thinking Swartz's understanding is not so great.. In this video, he claims that everything, all actions in the universe, is controlled by vasanas and samskaras, even in the high gurus like Sai Baba and others.. I thought enlightenment was being free from vasanas and samskaras. They should have all been burnt away. If they aren't then that is not the real thing. Is it? Well, he is entertaining anyway.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcFwgPzQ_rY TI Edited January 16, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted January 16, 2013 Hope that this is clear enough for everyone here: - The body is made of food, as the mind is made of thoughts. See them as they are. Non-identification, when natural and spontaneous, is liberation. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) ... Edited February 9, 2013 by Boy 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tibetan_Ice Posted January 17, 2013 Hi Boy, you said: "TI: Swartz calls none of those experiences enlightenment. Vasanas and samskaras do not apply to the Self. Sai Baba et al. are manifest. How is this difficult to comprehend?" Are you supporting the notion that that Sai Baba and the other beings have not erased their vasanas and samskaras? Perhaps Sai Baba is a bad example, because he was reputed to be a fraud. I mean, are you supporting the notion that realized beings in the universe still have vasanas and samskaras? Because that is what Swartz said. As well, I did not say that Swartz called those experiences enlightenment. But he could have. His interpretation of enlightenment, that we are awareness is not my definition of enlightenment. Mine is much more rigorous and includes powers like the ability to walk through walls. As a matter of fact, I was just reading a buddhist manual that was saying that once one reaches the stage of the One Taste and develops that state, one can walk through mountains, rocks and houses. And that is not the final stage. Does James Swartz seem like the kind of person that can walk through walls or leave footprints in stone? In your definition of the Self, I assume you are referring to the One, the one being in the universe that is everthing. True, that being does not have vasanas or samskaras, or maybe 'we' are it's samskaras and vasanas? But to say that all actions in the universe are the result of vasanas and samskaras of the manifest life forms in the universe doesn't seem right to me. First off, there is the belief that a truly enlightened being, in the more rigorous definition, has burnt all the vasanas and samskaras away (like Buddha). Actually, sorry to say, I think that James Swartz is a fraud. He may have had some interesting experiences but his definition of enlightenment as 'the realization that we are awareness' is the typical line that most inauthentic neo-advaitans blather out every chance they get. (note: I said "inauthentic". I'm sure there must be some authentic neo-advaitans who can walk through walls.) If you read this next excerpt from an interview with Janes Swartz, you might draw some conclusions like: The man is trying to sell his book by promising that you get enlightened just by reading it. That is, if you are qualified.. link: http://conscious.tv/text/26.htm James: Yes it’s provocative. I wanted to be provocative and thank God the publisher went along with it. It is a little misleading, but not really. It is misleading because you are already awareness - but it is not misleading because you can rediscover yourself as awareness. If you go to India and are lucky enough to have access to the highest levels of Indian spirituality, you will meet many enlightened people. This whole thing about consciousness and enlightenment is not a mystery. The rishis, the sages, are alive and kicking and this knowledge is definitely available through the sampradaya, the tradition, which is still cranking out enlightened people. Well, it’s not exactly an enlightenment factory, but it is a science and it works. I try to present this science clearly in my book and I think it is the first time that someone has actually done it in this way, someone who learned the tradition from within, who was set free by it and who has a western mentality and who is actually a writer. Most enlightened people are not writers. Their books are just transcriptions of their words. I start right from the beginning with the enquiry into motivations and develop the whole logic of Vedanta right through to the end. At every stage you are asked to sign on to the logic. In other words, if you can’t sign on to the conclusions in chapter one, it is useless to try to understand chapter two. And if you assimilated the knowledge in chapter two, you can move on to chapter three. In this way the book itself becomes a spiritual path. Nobody has done it this way, Indian or western. Iain: It is like a manual. James: Yes, exactly. It is pure Vedanta, not ‘my’ teaching or ‘my’ enlightenment experience. It is my gift to the tradition. So if you can assimilate this knowledge carefully, you can attain enlightenment through it. If you are qualified... there is a chapter on the qualifications for enlightenment... Even younger people in their thirties can assimilate it in a relatively short time and live free as the Self, not to mention more experienced older people. It is definitely possible. And you know, anyone who writes a book called "How to Attain Enlightenment" is implying that they are enlightened. Anyone who declares that their book will make them enlightened has sorely redefined the term "enlightened" and rendered it's true meaning almost sterile. That's just my opinion. You obviously feel differently. That is your right.. But if I were you I would find someone else to hold up as the epitomy of enlightenment or change your standards. TI 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) ... Edited February 9, 2013 by Boy 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rishi Das Posted January 17, 2013 "There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained. How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now." - Sri Ramana Maharshi 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted January 17, 2013 On Enlightenment, I think Abhinavagupta (Kashmir Shaivism ~1000 AD) sums it up well... ( "The Triadic Heart of Siva" pg 136-137) "When the state of indifference has disappeared, a vibration is perceived in the Heart... (The three types of Emission). The first, the "atomic" (anava), known by the technical name of repose in consciousness (citta-visranti), occurs when all possible products are emitted into the fire of emptiness. The next, know as the awakening of the consciousness, is related to the poser in that its nature that it maintains all visible things, etc... become submerged in consciousness of the self. ... The highest Emission. This is the Sambhava, known technically as the dissolution of the mind." The first emission is same as quiet or clear mind. No more "random" thoughts. The second emissions would be the "integration" into all of reality, or the "level" where one gets the "powers" that TI describes. The third would be equivalent to the Dzogchen/Buddhist "primordial light/awareness". Best wishes, Jeff Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ॐDominicusॐ Posted January 19, 2013 Im also agreeing that Swartz is implying basics of Neo-Advita buy going back to Awareness itself. What I've seen, and has corresponded to what I read, is that the Absolute state is even Prior to Awareness and is the source of Awareness. I've also had quite lengthy periods of extinguished vasanas, just a timeless unknowing Now whith no one there to experience. You can be all day in all sorts of states, but if the original principle illusion factory is in full effect, then what's the point!!!! Enlightenment to me, Complete establishment, in and as That (The Absolute) with all ego/illusion tendencies stilled or whipped out, all Nadi's Open, Love, Bi-Location and various other miraculous abilities like leaving footprints in stone. All these guys I'm seeing on the Advaita scene ....Meh. I think it's all so much more multi-Dimensional than just Realization that there is No me, and only an Absolute. I think the whole physical body changing and the mental tendencies cleaned out comes along with this. At least it has been beginning to take place in my reality Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) "Enlightenment to me, Complete establishment, in and as That (The Absolute) with all ego/illusion tendencies stilled or whipped out, all Nadi's Open, Love, Bi-Location and various other miraculous abilities..." Choose dharma and it may choose you, otherwise certain pursuits might become harmful speculation, extrapolation and projection. Edited January 19, 2013 by 3bob 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amoyaan Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) Great thread! Dominicus, I enjoyed reading your experiences. The technique of dropping from head to heart is similar to some techniques I've heard of, only they tend to drop into hara/dantien/navel. It works though. Too much of our energy is concentrated in the head region. I think there is an energetic component to enlightenment, although it's not something I know much about. What I've seen from my experiences with most Taoist practitioners or 'cultivators' or whatever is that they tend to overemphasise the energetic aspect...they might build up vibrant energy bodies but still not know who they are and still be bound by all manner of vasanas/conditioning/etc. I've learned that chasing after energetic experiences does not constitute enlightenment. This is one of a number of misconceptions about enlightenment -- I recognise them because I've had them all at some point or another. One of the things Swartz (whom I will go on to discuss in a second) made v clear to me is the distinction between experience and knowledge when it comes to enlightenment. Almost everyone in the spiritual world is chasing after the 'experience' of enlightenment; the experience of the Self. They want to feel great, feel powerful, feel blissful 24/7. But the thing is, it's a nondual reality so we're already the Self. There's never a time we're not the Self. In this maya apparent-reality, EVERYTHING, including our bodies, minds, emotions, etc - the psychosomatic apparatus through which consciousness expresses - is governed by the interplay of the gunas. Even if we attain a highly sattvic (peaceful, balanced, serene) state in which the reflected light of awareness shines very clearly, leaving us blissful and in a state of felt oneness...eventually tamas (inertia, dullness) or rajas (activity, passion, extroversion) will set in and the experience will pass. I've had hours/days/weeks in highly sattvic states...which I initially mistook as being 'enlightenment'. Total bliss and peace and perfect flow! It was hellish each time that state passed because I felt like I'd been kicked out of heaven and desperately wanted to get back in it. I learned not to chase after or grasp at these states though. 'I' don't make them happen, although by living a relatively sattvic lifestyle I can encourage them to happen. Thing is... as long as we're here we can't sustain any particular state indefinitely. It's not the nature of reality. And enlightenment isn't a 'state' anyway...if it was, it could be taken from us. Enlightenment according to vedanta is the hard and fast knowledge that we're already the Self, we're already whole, complete and limitless nondual awareness. We're not this little body or mind or the gunas and vasanas that determine its experience. There's nothing to chase after and nothing we can possibly add to ourselves. Yeah - that's basically what the neo advaita people tell us. Their 'teaching' fails however because they have no methodology for getting us 'where we are' to the point where we have a complete realisation/understanding/integration of that truth. It helps to be clear on what enlightenment is. It's not an experience we can add to ourselves. And I'm sorry Tibetan Ice but it's certainly not about being able to walk through walls or walk on water. It's true that you can work on certain yoga practises to develop siddhis and powers. But that does not constitute being enlightened --from what I understand there are many yogis that can do pretty neat stuff, but they still don't know Who they are. I guess that's why I prefer the term moksha - freedom from bondage. It's clearer and less easy to misinterpret or project onto. You guys really shouldn't judge James Swartz based upon a couple of youtube videos and interview transcripts or whatever. He's one of the few folk around that can actually teach this stuff and teach it really well. And, important point -- it's not 'his' teaching -- he teaches pure traditional Vedanta. He hasn't found any need to put 'his' stamp on it or modify it and create his own teaching as virtually every spiritual teacher on the planet does. The teaching is already beautiful and perfect as it is and he is one of those teachers of impeccable integrity who preserve its purity (for that reason he's scathing of neo advaita btw). Vedanta is not a teaching you can dip in and out of. It has to be unfolded in a certain way following a precise sequence of logic. Which is why you really need to read his book and/or listen to the audio available for free on his website in order. Please don't judge the teaching based upon your initial opinions of Swartz. It's not about him anyway. He didn't initially match up to my preconceived notion of how 'enlightened beings' might behave. That's because my initial notions of enlightenment were coloured by a lot of the 'magical thinking' that blights the spiritual world. Having watched his talks and listened to hundreds of hours of audio and communicated with him by email what I found is that he truly is a guy who has attained moksha. He's totally free (he doesn't care what others think of him or how many people come to his talks -- he's just doing what he's doing because it's his dharma, and he totally loves life)...definitely the real deal and one of the only spiritual teachers alive today that I'd fully trust. He knows vedanta inside out and truly lives it. But don't take my word for it... Edited January 19, 2013 by Dreamlight Fugitive 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ॐDominicusॐ Posted January 19, 2013 What I've seen from my experiences with most Taoist practitioners or 'cultivators' or whatever is that they tend to overemphasise the energetic aspect...they might build up vibrant energy bodies but still not know who they are and still be bound by all manner of vasanas/conditioning/etc. I've learned that chasing after energetic experiences does not constitute enlightenment. In my experience, the energetic qualities came later and by surprise, after investigating, "Who Am I, Where Am I, What Am I? Neti Neti, etc" So there is an established knowing here not to cling. The energetic qualities just seem to come with the territory. This is one of a number of misconceptions about enlightenment -- I recognise them because I've had them all at some point or another. One of the things Swartz (whom I will go on to discuss in a second) made v clear to me is the distinction between experience and knowledge when it comes to enlightenment. There is a difference between experience & knowledge in all things. In my personal experience, which I have later on found echoed in a number of teachers/teachings, is that that mind and aspects of yourself that hold knowledge, have to catch up to, or take the time to, figure out what just happened in "Experiences" like glimpses of Satori and a number of other various realizations. It took me 2 years to understand my initial glimpses, realizations, experiences.... if not more. Almost everyone in the spiritual world is chasing after the 'experience' of enlightenment; the experience of the Self. They want to feel great, feel powerful, feel blissful 24/7. "Almost everyone" ......being key words here. At least in my case, I have seen "Me" to be an illusion and the "search" to be part of the Illusion, as well as seeing that "feelings" of powerful and blissful come and go. So there is a complete letting go, acceptance, Being, Allowing Surrender, etc. The seeking/seeker is definitely illusory nature. But the thing is, it's a nondual reality so we're already the Self. There's never a time we're not the Self. I feel with the above statement, it's similar to Sailor Bob saying, "there is nothing you can do. Full Stop." All of that is a misnomer. I've been, years ago, at various Vedanta retreats where the Above statement's are said over and over and over again and people just end up saying, "Well, I get it intellectually, but that's about it." And they remain in this cycle of ever hearing, but never understanding. Ramana Maharshi spoke of 3 kinds of people (paraphrased). 1. Ripe. Can hear a pointer and instantly "Boom!!!!" The Self is realized and permanent. 2. Somewhat Ripe, will need some time to acclimate, glimpses here and there, and eventually realize Self 3. Unripe and will probably never get it this life. On top of all that said, I find there is definitely things that you can do to put yourself at the edge of a precipice/cliff of realization. For myself, it was reading Koans/Pointers that gave the Initial glimpse. However even that happened in stages. First I shifted from Ego/Mind, to Observer of mind or Pure Awareness, and this Awareness had the ability to leave the body and remember pre-existing prior to the body as this Awareness. If you consider the Above experience, and the read about Adi Shankara, consolidater of Vedanata, he too would leave his body as Awareness. Furthermore, after realizing self as awareness prior to the mind, and taking a sigh of relief of finally being free from ego/mind (which caused me so much crap problems in life up to that point), the sigh of relief and full letting go, Allowed this awareness to drop down into the Absolute ...where there was no more Awareness anymore ...everything was One grand Being. So my take is that Neo-Advaitists got it wrong cause they stop at Awareness. And that the old school purists possibly also have it wrong because they are saying, it's only the Self/Absolute and that's it. I think at the end of the day it's: The Absolute. Not the Absolute. Both. None. All 4 of those simultaneously still allows the multidimensionality of existence, body, nadi's, arising and falling away of the sign posts and scenery ...all of that stuff happening within the One/Tao/Absolute, etc. Even if we attain a highly sattvic (peaceful, balanced, serene) state in which the reflected light of awareness shines very clearly, leaving us blissful and in a state of felt oneness...eventually tamas (inertia, dullness) or rajas (activity, passion, extroversion) will set in and the experience will pass. I've had hours/days/weeks in highly sattvic states...which I initially mistook as being 'enlightenment'. Yeah, been there and done that too. Arising and passing away of all these "states, bliss, experiences, etc." Yet the one that Observes them, is what remains after they pass, so it's adamant to start with the principle observer that remains when all states/experiences subside. otal bliss and peace and perfect flow! It was hellish each time that state passed because I felt like I'd been kicked out of heaven and desperately wanted to get back in it. I learned not to chase after or grasp at these states though. 'I' don't make them happen, although by living a relatively sattvic lifestyle I can encourage them to happen. Yeah been there too. Went through a 3 year dark night of the Soul. It made depression look like sheer ecstasy in comparison. But what the Dark Night did, was to reveal that no matter what comes and goes, the Observer is there through it all... so what/where is this Observer? That's the ultimate starting point imho Thing is... as long as we're here we can't sustain any particular state indefinitely. It's not the nature of reality. And enlightenment isn't a 'state' anyway...if it was, it could be taken from us. Enlightenment according to vedanta is the hard and fast knowledge that we're already the Self, we're already whole, complete and limitless nondual awareness. To the mind/ego however, it definitely labels "Nondual Awareness" as a state. It's the label maker's nature to make labels for things. I hear you though. The Nondual Awareness is the basic building block that is fundamental reality. At least that's what was seen here. Thing is, in my experience of Vedanta, it brought out with it, all these extras that I had let go of or didn't even believe in. Nadi's, Awareness traveling out of the body, bliss, pre-existent memories, various other states that come with all of this, etc. It helps to be clear on what enlightenment is. It's not an experience we can add to ourselves. And I'm sorry Tibetan Ice but it's certainly not about being able to walk through walls or walk on water. It's true that you can work on certain yoga practises to develop siddhis and powers. But that does not constitute being enlightened --from what I understand there are many yogis that can do pretty neat stuff, but they still don't know Who they are. I guess that's why I prefer the term moksha - freedom from bondage. It's clearer and less easy to misinterpret or project onto. That's why I said, in my view, Enlightenment is multi-dimensional. I agree it's not anything added to us. I would say it is more like in example using a parable of an Onion compared to the practice of Neti Neti. Who am I that is not a thought. Not This, Not this, not the mind, not thoughts, not the body ...is like peeling away an Onion layer by layer. When everything is peeled away and let go of, there is a complete Unknowing that remains, and in that Unknowing, the Absolute becomes revealed, which was always there. It's not added, it's just revealed when all illusion is stripped away. But that's just the thing. With all of this came Nadi's opening up, and mind tendencies being cleared away, compassion, Love, Life living me and instead of me living life. There is just soooo many applicable traits that can be said about it all. That's why my take was that Enlightenment is miraculous abilities, a physical body that is changed, all illusions discarded, etc because all of those things are reality. You guys really shouldn't judge James Swartz based upon a couple of youtube videos and interview transcripts or whatever. He's one of the few folk around that can actually teach this stuff and teach it really well. Your right! Do not judge. I think in my case, as with many, there comes a saturation point of reading and listening to all these Vedanata teachers. After a good 5-6+ solid years of studying this stuff, all the things these guys say, the pointers that are meant to reveal what is beyond mind, and "you are not who you think you are" and all that other stuff, it becomes the same stuff recycled. I'll give Swartz another shot, but honestly for me all that's left is practice. Being, letting go, Stillness, Neti Neti, Awareness aware of itself, Anapanasati, Seeing that I am not the mind or thinker of thoughts, etc. This is where the magic happens and Self consolidates itself 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tibetan_Ice Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) Hi DLF This is one of a number of misconceptions about enlightenment -- I recognise them because I've had them all at some point or another. One of the things Swartz (whom I will go on to discuss in a second) made v clear to me is the distinction between experience and knowledge when it comes to enlightenment. Almost everyone in the spiritual world is chasing after the 'experience' of enlightenment; the experience of the Self. They want to feel great, feel powerful, feel blissful 24/7. But the thing is, it's a nondual reality so we're already the Self. There's never a time we're not the Self. In this maya apparent-reality, EVERYTHING, including our bodies, minds, emotions, etc - the psychosomatic apparatus through which consciousness expresses - is governed by the interplay of the gunas. Even if we attain a highly sattvic (peaceful, balanced, serene) state in which the reflected light of awareness shines very clearly, leaving us blissful and in a state of felt oneness...eventually tamas (inertia, dullness) or rajas (activity, passion, extroversion) will set in and the experience will pass. I've had hours/days/weeks in highly sattvic states...which I initially mistook as being 'enlightenment'. Total bliss and peace and perfect flow! It was hellish each time that state passed because I felt like I'd been kicked out of heaven and desperately wanted to get back in it. I learned not to chase after or grasp at these states though. 'I' don't make them happen, although by living a relatively sattvic lifestyle I can encourage them to happen. It sounds like you have had some interesting experiences too. I see no distinction between experiences and knowledge. Knowledge is gained through experience. Insight. In my opinion, you cannot know something without experiencing it. It sounds to me that Swartz has told you not to seek the experiences, but seek the knowledge? Isn't that the neo-advaita trap? Just intellectually understanding that we are one doesn't cut it. Just understanding that there is nothing wrong with right now unless we think about it, as Sailor Bob says, is only part of the equation. You have to experience it to know it. Perhaps you could explain how Swartz supports the acquisition of knowledge, if not through experience.. Perhaps you could try this little experiment. Construct a simple thought in your head and then look squarely at it, into it's essence. Notice that you 'know' the thought. Follow that aspect of "knowing" the thought back into the part of you that knows. Do not assess the thought by using other thoughts. As you examine the thought, you might see a golden kind of light, a clarity and luminosity. Follow that light.. Follow it down, down.. You will see, it goes directly to the heart space. This practice is not so easy to do. It had taken me weeks of meditation/investigation and clearing of that particular pathway to the heart in order to ascertain a direct link between "knowing" and the heart space.. It helps to be clear on what enlightenment is. It's not an experience we can add to ourselves. And I'm sorry Tibetan Ice but it's certainly not about being able to walk through walls or walk on water. It's true that you can work on certain yoga practises to develop siddhis and powers. But that does not constitute being enlightened --from what I understand there are many yogis that can do pretty neat stuff, but they still don't know Who they are. I guess that's why I prefer the term moksha - freedom from bondage. It's clearer and less easy to misinterpret or project onto. The problem with the term 'enlightenment' is that everyone has their own definition of it. Whenever I've read most neo-advaitan writing, I've always thought the term enlightenment had been redefined, watered down to the point where enlightenment was just a state of awareness, easily obtained by anyone who could simply 'let go'. First, most neo-advaitans separate the siddhis away from our natural state as something that is not desirable, nor any indication of achievement. Most Neo_advaitans never talk about healing others, reading minds, walking through walls etc.. To them, enlightenment is simply understanding that they are awareness, or so it would seem. Granted, siddhis can be developed on their own and have been for hundreds of years by hundreds/thousands of people. However, the powers or siddhis, which are part of the enlightenment process in my definition of the term 'enlightenment' arise because of the true understanding of reality. In my own words, it goes like this. In a dream, you can do anything you want. You can fly, walk through walls, shapeshift into a horse, manifest objects,, you can do anything you'd like. Normal life is also a dream, it is not real, just like a dream. If you truly understood that, had real knowledge of that, then the same extraordinary things you can do in a dream can also be done in this reality. However, I am not alone in my beliefs and definitions. Have you ever studied any of the Buddhist teachings? Ever hear of rainbow body?, Milerepa, Naropa, etc.. Dzogchen, Mahamudra teachings? link: http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A%20-%20Tibetan%20Buddhism/Authors/Gampopa/Mahamudra%20-%20The%20Very%20Essence%20of%20Mind/Mahamudra%20-%20The%20Very%20Essence%20Of%20Mind%20-%20By%20Gampopa.htm The fifth point is, "Mahamudra has no result," and yet the mind liberated into dharmata is the result of mahamudra. Through practicing mahamudra meditation one purifies all the adventitious obscurations of the mind which are explained sometimes as being of two types: the obscuration of mental afflictions and the obscurations to objects of knowledge. When these obscurations have been purified, then one has attained the result of mahamudra. That is the result of mahamudra. When one has become free of all obscurations, then the habitual patterns of clinging to true existence are also purified and one is able to truly recognize that external appearances are an aspect of mind - an appearing aspect of mind - and one will have reached a level where appearances and one’s own mind have mixed. When one has become free of clinging to true existence - free of the apprehension of true existence*** - together with the habitual patterns for such clinging or apprehension, then it is said that one’s own mind and appearances are mixed. ***Editor’s note: The existence of phenomena as other than mere appearance arising as the expression of the interdependence of merely apparent causes and conditions; permanent substantial existence independent of causes and conditions that give rise to it.At that point then one is able to perform miracles, as were performed by the siddhas of both India and Tibet. They were able to touch fire but not be burned by it. They were able to walk on water and not sink in it. They were able to walk through the walls of buildings, and so forth. These miracles arise naturally at that level. At that point one has also purified the four elements of one’s physical body and is able to transform one’s body into such things as a large mass of fire or a large body of water. One is able to perform many different types of miracles and practice many different types of samadhi. At that level one has also purified the nadi, prana, and bindu* of one’s own physical form and because of that one is able to arise in or manifest the form of many different yidams or deities, and one is also able to meet with these many various yidams. At that point it sometimes also occurs that one’s students are able to see one’s form as being that of the yidam. Then as is said, "Just like fire and firewood, the remedy and what is to be abandoned are exhausted together. Whoever has perfected all qualities in the expanse is a yogin or yogini of nonmeditation." What is to be abandoned are the obscurations of mental afflictions and the obscurations to objects of knowledge, and when these have been exhausted, then the path which is the means to abandon them is also exhausted. The illustration of this is the exhaustion of firewood and fire. When one has a lot of firewood, then one will have a big fire. When all the firewood is burned up, the fire will also go out. At that point one is liberated from all hopes and fears. One is liberated from the fear of wandering in samsara and one is liberated from the hope of attaining liberation. So, if you don't want to believe all that and stay with your definition of enlightenment, that is fine with me. It's just not for me. You guys really shouldn't judge James Swartz based upon a couple of youtube videos and interview transcripts or whatever. He's one of the few folk around that can actually teach this stuff and teach it really well. And, important point -- it's not 'his' teaching -- he teaches pure traditional Vedanta. He hasn't found any need to put 'his' stamp on it or modify it and create his own teaching as virtually every spiritual teacher on the planet does. The teaching is already beautiful and perfect as it is and he is one of those teachers of impeccable integrity who preserve its purity (for that reason he's scathing of neo advaita btw). Vedanta is not a teaching you can dip in and out of. It has to be unfolded in a certain way following a precise sequence of logic. Which is why you really need to read his book and/or listen to the audio available for free on his website in order. Please don't judge the teaching based upon your initial opinions of Swartz. It's not about him anyway. He didn't initially match up to my preconceived notion of how 'enlightened beings' might behave. That's because my initial notions of enlightenment were coloured by a lot of the 'magical thinking' that blights the spiritual world. Having watched his talks and listened to hundreds of hours of audio and communicated with him by email what I found is that he truly is a guy who has attained moksha. He's totally free (he doesn't care what others think of him or how many people come to his talks -- he's just doing what he's doing because it's his dharma, and he totally loves life)...definitely the real deal and one of the only spiritual teachers alive today that I'd fully trust. He knows vedanta inside out and truly lives it. But don't take my word for it... If someone volunteers themselves to be a teacher, to claim to be enlightened and to be able to show others how to become enlightened, then I have the right to assess the person, his/her teachings and gather as much information as I possibly can in order to help me with my decision. It is my right to judge, assess, examine critically, sense, evaluate and form opinions. I know it is hard when somebody else says that the person you idolize, whom you have been following and looking up to as the "real thing" is not the real thing, or has their doubts. Let me ask you these questions: How much money have you spent during your communications with Swartz? Has he ever visited you in the astral planes (like Ramana did for several people)? Has he ever given you shaktipat or sent you energy/bliss remotely? What exactly has he shown you that brought you a step closer to enlightenment? Buddha is said to have 'awoken' some people in the span of one or two weeks. How long have you been associating with Swartz? If you don't want to answer these questions, that is fine with me. I'm not interested in arguing or belabouring these points much. All the best.. TI Edited January 20, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) ... Edited February 9, 2013 by Boy 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tibetan_Ice Posted January 20, 2013 TI, You directed your questions at Dreamlight Fugitive, so feel free to disregard this reply. There are, however, a few unfortunate misunderstandings in your post. James Swartz didn’t actually volunteer himself to be a teacher, he makes no claim of enlightenment, and he is only able to show others “how to become enlightened” through the teachings of traditional vedanta. Why are you in this sub forum, TI? /// Hi Boy, Gee, would you want to learn brain surgery from someone who wasn't a qualified brain surgeon? I will be honest. I am posting in this sub-forum because the experiences that Dominicus has posted are so similar to mine that I feel like I finally found someone I can talk to and verify my experiences with. And what did you do? I was very resentful that you attempted to degrade his accomplishments and level of attainments by suggesting that he was adding too much subjective awareness to the mix, and that he didn't really get it. I mean, who exactly are you and how can you make those kind of statements? You said, in response to Dominicus' post: Dominicus: Very nice. Yoga. You certainly appear to be doing yourself a disservice by adding that subjective awareness of yours to the mix. It’s crystal clear that you’ve seen the truth, but.. you didn’t really get it, did you? ;-) If your mind needs help with the "spring-cleaning", try writing James Swartz an email. Be nice and read his book first! So, first you insult Dominicus and then you suggest a teacher that might help him... and a pretty sketchy one too. I see Dominicus as far more advanced than most of the prominant spiritual teachers out there today. You know, I had examined James Swartz a few years ago, when I was examining the 'spiritual teachers' like John Wheeler, Sailor Bob, Rodney Stevens, Francis Lucille, and others, Ken Wilbur (not exactly sure if that is correct for Ken, but ...) ... I really like Francis Lucille and I'm not really sure exactly what he is.. or that it matters.. I tend to pay more attention to practices rather than labels.. As a matter of fact, I even posted a comment about neo-Advaita here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/22023-neo-advaita/?p=314240 and that was a year ago. And then, you have the arrogance to ask me why I am posting in a Vedanta sub-forum. Are you intimidated that I quoted some Buddhist teachings to support my beliefs? Or perhaps you are just curious? I don't want to start a war.. So now I have to justify my pedigree? I have been meditating, doing yoga and spiritual practices in one form of another for over 40 years. I started out with James Hewitt's "Yoga, Youth and Reincarnation" book, learned the postures and pranayama, practiced until I sweat and could hit samadhi every time after 15 minutes of meditation. That was when I was 16. This is a brief list of the major spiritual activities that I have been into throughout my life: Don Juan -Carlos Casteneda -every single book he wrote. Out of Body Journeys - Robert Monroe Eckankar - Paul Twitchell Kundalini - Gopi Krishna Rosicrucian -for two years Kriya Yoga - SRF - Yogananda Paramahansa Yogi. - 3 years Tibetan Book of the Dead The Bhagavadgita Many new age books on chakras and crystals. I also used to cut and polish gemstones. Nisargadatta "I AM THAT" -read it twice. and three of his other books. Krishna Menon, Goenka, Eckhart Tolle -most all of his books, CD's. Old Testament - Bible, New Testament - Bible. Gurudeva - Merging with Shiva (Raja Yoga) I was trained in judo and karate and took Tai Chi for 1 year. My kundalini woke about 8 years ago.. I have over 50 pdf's from various spiritual teachers on my computer, including Saraswati, Ennio Nemis, Dalai Lama, Gyatso, Buddha - Anapansati, Dada Bahgwan, Ramana, Mark Griffin, Visuddimagga, Edward Muzika and Rajiv Kapur, Ken Wilbur, Mantak Chia, Robert Adams, Adyashanti (no like).. Osho (no like) etc etc etc.. My guru is Sri Anandi Ma and Dhyan Yogi. I was initiated in 2008 - shaktipat in absentia. Read "This House is on Fire". http://www.amazon.com/This-House-Fire-Life-Dhyanyogi/dp/1883879523 I have four versions of Patanjali's Eight Limbs of Yoga. I was banned from AYP after 4 1/2 years because I did not support the watered down crappy teachings and brutal stupidity of trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of seeker, by oversimplifying practices and mixing in the wrong type of meditation with kriya yoga concoctions. I own and have read over 300 books on Hinduism, meditation, Buddhism, Kriya Yoga, Raja Yoga, etc. etc.. I have been meditating 2 to 3 hours a day for the last 5 1/2 years. I have missed only two days during that whole time. Since leaving AYP, over a year ago, I have been studying Buddhism, Alan Wallace, Dudjom Lingpa, Padmasambhava, Dzogchen, Shaila Catherine, Ajahn Brahm, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Tenzin Wangyal for correct practices in breath meditation, and for knowledge about the spiritual experiences that I have had. I have found that Buddhists have much more exact details for practices, maps and theory than any other spiritual teachings that I have found. But maybe some Buddhists are too picky about miniscule details, or maybe they aren't really Buddhists?.. I mean, Buddhism is a plethora of lineages, divisions and distinctions. So, I feel like I have spent enough time doing spiritual practices that I can post in the "Vedanta" sub forum. What I have found is that no matter what background you have, no matter what your spiritual belief system is, you can usually tell where the person has been and what they have achieved by the kind of experiences that they write about. That is all that matters. It is easy to pretend or deceive or stretch the truth, especially in annonymous forums and on the internet. When someone tells you that they have learned that there is a channel which leads down to the heart, and they can describe the experience and the effects, to me that speaks volumes. If someone tries to justify their authority by holding up a certain experience, and if I have had that experience too, then I feel I can assess their professed level of attainment. A big one for me is whether or not the person comes to visit me in the astral plane, dead or alive. So now, perhaps you could tell us about your background, that we may assess your level of competency and whether or not you should be posting in the Vedanta sub-forum? LOL AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA TI 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted January 20, 2013 Sounds like lots of private and or advanced yogi stuff so maybe more private communications for such details would be in order? I don't know of any good guru or advanced student that goes to the general public with private details and experiences, (thus they speak in an introductory way for the public) Imo this site is largely public with some folks maybe checking out Hinduism for the first time only to hear arguments and then perhaps miss the simple beauty of the revealed teachings and move on... Om Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sanzon Posted January 20, 2013 Well to the mind this was "It!!!" ...Soon as the mind proclaimed ..."This is It!!!!" There was a re-solidification of the Subject/Observer back in the head area, and a mind to make retrospect comments about what just happened. I hear ya! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rishi Das Posted January 20, 2013 I mean, who exactly are you... TI Instead of searching for who he is...go inward, ask the question, who am I? Nadi's, Astral worlds, Heart Center...not it, not it, not it.... So now I have to justify my pedigree? This is a brief list of the major spiritual activities that I have been into throughout my life: Don Juan -Carlos Casteneda -every single book he wrote. Out of Body Journeys - Robert Monroe Eckankar - Paul Twitchell Kundalini - Gopi Krishna Rosicrucian -for two years Kriya Yoga - SRF - Yogananda Paramahansa Yogi. - 3 years Tibetan Book of the Dead The Bhagavadgita Many new age books on chakras and crystals. I also used to cut and polish gemstones. Nisargadatta "I AM THAT" -read it twice. and three of his other books. Krishna Menon, Goenka, Eckhart Tolle -most all of his books, CD's. Old Testament - Bible, New Testament - Bible. Gurudeva - Merging with Shiva (Raja Yoga) I was trained in judo and karate and took Tai Chi for 1 year. My kundalini woke about 8 years ago.. I have over 50 pdf's from various spiritual teachers on my computer, including Saraswati, Ennio Nemis, Dalai Lama, Gyatso, Buddha - Anapansati, Dada Bahgwan, Ramana, Mark Griffin, Visuddimagga, Edward Muzika and Rajiv Kapur, Ken Wilbur, Mantak Chia, Robert Adams, Adyashanti (no like).. Osho (no like) etc etc etc.. Not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it, not it... Sounds like lots of private and or advanced yogi stuff so maybe more private communications for such details would be in order? Om "The source of everything is one’s own Self, and if one realizes the Self, one will not find anything different from the Self. Then these questions will not arise." - Sri Ramana Maharshi 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted January 20, 2013 in the meantime dharma is noble... and lots of work is pending. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) ... Edited February 9, 2013 by Boy 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amoyaan Posted January 22, 2013 Hey D There is a difference between experience & knowledge in all things. In my personal experience, which I have later on found echoed in a number of teachers/teachings, is that that mind and aspects of yourself that hold knowledge, have to catch up to, or take the time to, figure out what just happened in "Experiences" like glimpses of Satori and a number of other various realizations. It took me 2 years to understand my initial glimpses, realizations, experiences.... if not more. Yup I'd agree with that. Mind doesn't know how to process the nonlinear stuff. "Almost everyone" ......being key words here. At least in my case, I have seen "Me" to be an illusion and the "search" to be part of the Illusion, as well as seeing that "feelings" of powerful and blissful come and go. So there is a complete letting go, acceptance, Being, Allowing Surrender, etc. The seeking/seeker is definitely illusory nature. Yeah, in my post I wasn't specifically referring to you or anyone in particular. Just some general reflections. It seems to me that you have had or have genuine realisation of the Self. I just wanted to clarify some points on vedanta as there were a few misconceptions about vedanta. and I felt I could do this here as it is a vedanta forum. If it had been another I may not have said I feel with the above statement, it's similar to Sailor Bob saying, "there is nothing you can do. Full Stop." That's not really the point I wanted to make. On an absolute level that statement is correct but it's a neo advaita copout if that's basically all Sailor Bob tells us (I don't really know him, I think he's a neo though?). Obviously there are things you can do to purify the mind and enable yourself to 'gain' Self realisation...which isn't really a gain, but more of a change of our default settings I guess. True vedanta has an entire arsenal of tools to enable us to make this shift. All of that is a misnomer. I've been, years ago, at various Vedanta retreats where the Above statement's are said over and over and over again and people just end up saying, "Well, I get it intellectually, but that's about it." And they remain in this cycle of ever hearing, but never understanding. Ramana Maharshi spoke of 3 kinds of people (paraphrased). 1. Ripe. Can hear a pointer and instantly "Boom!!!!" The Self is realized and permanent. 2. Somewhat Ripe, will need some time to acclimate, glimpses here and there, and eventually realize Self 3. Unripe and will probably never get it this life. Yes! Again the neos don't tell us this, because their satsangs might get a lot quieter, but in order to GET this, we need to be 'qualified'. Obviously the mind needs to be relatively stable and pure to be able to assimilate the teaching and make the shift. Shankara outlined the four main qualifications necessary for really assimilating Self knowledge: discrimination, dispassion, discipline and desire for Realisation. These are the qualities necessary for ripeness. i guess they are the difference between someone who seeks enlightenment for decades but can't seem to get it (must lack one or more of the four D's!) and those who can listen to a single talk and just 'click'! All true vedanta teachers emphasise the necessary for be fully prepared in order to assimilate the teaching. On top of all that said, I find there is definitely things that you can do to put yourself at the edge of a precipice/cliff of realization. For myself, it was reading Koans/Pointers that gave the Initial glimpse. However even that happened in stages. First I shifted from Ego/Mind, to Observer of mind or Pure Awareness, and this Awareness had the ability to leave the body and remember pre-existing prior to the body as this Awareness. Yeah there are definitely things you need to do to 'ripen' yourself. Koans are good - zen is an amazing tradition and works amazingly for many people. Vedanta offers sadhana, spiritual practise to prepare the mind - karma yoga/letting go of the fruits of our actions, bkhati yoga/devotion, meditation, etc. These are not direct means to realisation, but indirect. They whip the mind into shape, into a suitably pure and receptive mode in which we can practise jnana/knowledge yoga/self inquiry and process our inquiry. Neo advaita generally ignores this necessary prerequisite and tells us no practises are necessary, trying to offer 'enlightenment for lazy people'. I've never met anyone that's worked for! If you consider the Above experience, and the read about Adi Shankara, consolidater of Vedanata, he too would leave his body as Awareness. Furthermore, after realizing self as awareness prior to the mind, and taking a sigh of relief of finally being free from ego/mind (which caused me so much crap problems in life up to that point), the sigh of relief and full letting go, Allowed this awareness to drop down into the Absolute ...where there was no more Awareness anymore ...everything was One grand Being. So my take is that Neo-Advaitists got it wrong cause they stop at Awareness. The Neos are lazy. They don't have a complete teaching. They just cherry pick elements of jnana yoga and pass that off as all we need. Clearly it isn't, unless the person is already highly qualified and has a very pure, still, dispassionate and discriminating mind. That's very rare in our crazy culture. And that the old school purists possibly also have it wrong because they are saying, it's only the Self/Absolute and that's it. You say 'that's it' like it's nothing special at all. It's pretty fcking amazing! I haven't got to the state where Self knowledge is completely abiding, I dip in and out (still some vaasnas to work out!!), but when I'm grounded in t completely transforms everything...in that you are no longer bound by anything in this world. It's a sense of freedom and fearlessness. It's just the start of the journey. Of that I am certain... I think at the end of the day it's: The Absolute. Not the Absolute. Both. None. All 4 of those simultaneously still allows the multidimensionality of existence, body, nadi's, arising and falling away of the sign posts and scenery ...all of that stuff happening within the One/Tao/Absolute, etc. I guess it really depends what perspective we take, This whole topic is extremely subtle, expansive, multi-dimensional. It's hard to discuss also, because a statement that is true from one perspective may be untrue from another, but that doesn't negate the truth of it. I feel it's a contradiction saying there's the Absolute and 'not the Absolute' because that would mean the Absolute isn't absolute. Maybe it's wording and semantics. I think of it as the Absolute and the apparent reality/apparent separation/apparent world/maya/etc. It's not *not* the Absolute, but it appears to be lol Yeah, been there and done that too. Arising and passing away of all these "states, bliss, experiences, etc." Yet the one that Observes them, is what remains after they pass, so it's adamant to start with the principle observer that remains when all states/experiences subside. Yeah been there too. Went through a 3 year dark night of the Soul. It made depression look like sheer ecstasy in comparison. But what the Dark Night did, was to reveal that no matter what comes and goes, the Observer is there through it all... so what/where is this Observer? That's the ultimate starting point imho Excellent. I've had periods of depression and whatnot...sensitive, emotional guy...through it all awareness shines. It outlasts everything. The mundaka upanishad astounds me with it's simple but mind-shattering realisation. The person we think we are with its problems and emotions and desires and fears doesn't even last a full 24 hours. It recedes into a dream self with entirely diff problems and emotions and circumstances. And then that self recedes into pure unconscious consciousness. Awareness (what I think you mean as the observer) ties together these ephemeral selves like the string connecting pearls. Only in this case the pearls are made out of the string, all one substance. It's crazy...beautiful... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amoyaan Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) To the mind/ego however, it definitely labels "Nondual Awareness" as a state. It's the label maker's nature to make labels for things. I hear you though. The Nondual Awareness is the basic building block that is fundamental reality. At least that's what was seen here. Thing is, in my experience of Vedanta, it brought out with it, all these extras that I had let go of or didn't even believe in. Nadi's, Awareness traveling out of the body, bliss, pre-existent memories, various other states that come with all of this, etc. Hmm, I haven't heard of these things being part of traditional vedanta teaching. They are part of the yoga path but there's a slight disconnect between the approach/perspective of the yogi and that of the vedanta student. That said, vedanta integrates yoga as a means of purifying the mind/body/emotions. Just not as a direct means of enlightenment. That's why I said, in my view, Enlightenment is multi-dimensional. I agree it's not anything added to us. I would say it is more like in example using a parable of an Onion compared to the practice of Neti Neti. Who am I that is not a thought. Not This, Not this, not the mind, not thoughts, not the body ...is like peeling away an Onion layer by layer. When everything is peeled away and let go of, there is a complete Unknowing that remains, and in that Unknowing, the Absolute becomes revealed, which was always there. It's not added, it's just revealed when all illusion is stripped away. Yeah! But that's just the thing. With all of this came Nadi's opening up, and mind tendencies being cleared away, compassion, Love, Life living me and instead of me living life. There is just soooo many applicable traits that can be said about it all. That's why my take was that Enlightenment is miraculous abilities, a physical body that is changed, all illusions discarded, etc because all of those things are reality. My understanding of it is that once enlightenment/self realisation happens there is a long period of integration. You know you are the Self but you still have all the old vasanas and mind tendencies to clean up. Swartz believes that once Ramana attained Self Realisation he sat in a cave for 10 years, basically to clear out all the mind's impurities, burn away the vasanas and mindstuff...and that's why he was such a pure and radiant expression of Self. During this clean-up phase it's prob also possible to attain siddhis and refine the physical body to a great extent. Others after realising the Self may not do the same work and may still have vasanas and personality-level stuff that plays out. Doesn't mean they aren't Self realised; they might completely know they are the Self but still not be a 'textbook perfect' example of what we think a human should be. I mean Nisargadatta was an amazing Self realised master...but he was also cranky, irritable and a chain smoker lol It may be you're at a stage you don't need Swartz. But if you're interested in understanding traditional, pure vedanta and seeing how it relates to what you're experiencing his book 'how to attain enlightenment' is fascinating! Yeah it's a naff title, meant in a tongue in cheek way but this is an amazing book. It's the ONLY book I've ever read that lays out the entire system of vedanta in a clear, concise, accessible way that follows a beautiful and perfect logic. It's a fascinating read! Edited January 22, 2013 by Dreamlight Fugitive 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amoyaan Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Hey TI Hi DLF It sounds like you have had some interesting experiences too. I see no distinction between experiences and knowledge. Knowledge is gained through experience. Insight. In my opinion, you cannot know something without experiencing it. Experience can be wrong though. Each day I experience the sun appearing in the sky and then disappearing at night. If I was to derive knowledge from this based on my experience (that the sun somehow appears and disappears) my knowledge would in fact be ignorance. Same goes for so many things in life, including spiritual life. Ignorance is basically hard-wired into us as we are brought up to believe we are little entities encased in a mound of flesh and blood and that there's a world and other people out there separate from us. Even physicists are now close to determining that this is, as Einstein put it, an optical delusion of consciousness. Hence the importance of knowledge. Then...then we can use the logic of that knowledge and test it to see how it can be experienced as true. It sounds to me that Swartz has told you not to seek the experiences, but seek the knowledge? Isn't that the neo-advaita trap? Just intellectually understanding that we are one doesn't cut it. Just understanding that there is nothing wrong with right now unless we think about it, as Sailor Bob says, is only part of the equation. You have to experience it to know it. Perhaps you could explain how Swartz supports the acquisition of knowledge, if not through experience.. No, it's subtler than that. Swartz does say, yeah forget chasing after spiritual experiences, spiritual highs and visions etc. That keeps our attention extroverted. It might feel great but it mst likely won't give us realisation of the Self; the 'Who' that is experiencing it. We just tend to get a high and chase after more experiences. Yeah...just intellectually understanding that we are one won't cut it, unless the mind has been purified first by sadhana (I spoke of the 4 main 'qualifications' in a post above to Dominicus). That enables us to truly ASSIMILATE the knowledge, to shift our modus operandi away from the experiencing entity/doer/ego and into the baseline of pure awareness. That shift won't happen just by hearing some neo talk about the Self unless the necessary groundwork is laid and the mind is prepared. It's a subtle understanding...it's hard to elucidate and get. Once the mind is sufficiently 'ripe' for the teaching, Self knowledge can take hold, can transform our understanding...and then becomes our experience. Perhaps you could try this little experiment. Construct a simple thought in your head and then look squarely at it, into it's essence. Notice that you 'know' the thought. Follow that aspect of "knowing" the thought back into the part of you that knows. Do not assess the thought by using other thoughts. As you examine the thought, you might see a golden kind of light, a clarity and luminosity. Follow that light.. Follow it down, down.. You will see, it goes directly to the heart space. This practice is not so easy to do. It had taken me weeks of meditation/investigation and clearing of that particular pathway to the heart in order to ascertain a direct link between "knowing" and the heart space.. It's a neat exercise - powerful. Again, this is a form of inquiry which is the essence of vedanta. The problem with the term 'enlightenment' is that everyone has their own definition of it. Yes, it is a problem. There's some nutty stuff out there. A lot of it I've even been taken in by in the past. Ascension and stuff. I even find the whole Taoist immortal feotus stuff silly. We're already immortal Vedanta...pure traditional vedanta taken from the Upanishads and related Vedantic texts...is the origin of all enlightenment traditions including Buddhism. We're so lucky that these texts have been retained in their purity, uncorrupt. And they are extremely beautiful, stunning, poetic, simple. There's no need for anyone to reinvent the wheel, or come up with new concepts and definitions of enlightenment...it's all there, and has been for millennia. Whenever I've read most neo-advaitan writing, I've always thought the term enlightenment had been redefined, watered down to the point where enlightenment was just a state of awareness, easily obtained by anyone who could simply 'let go'. First, most neo-advaitans separate the siddhis away from our natural state as something that is not desirable, nor any indication of achievement. Most Neo_advaitans never talk about healing others, reading minds, walking through walls etc.. To them, enlightenment is simply understanding that they are awareness, or so it would seem. Neo advaita does not have a proper teaching. They cherry pick elements of vedanta but offer people no methodology for REALISING those truths. They can be lazy and quite cruel: if you don't get it, you're often made out to be stupid, or not 'advanced enough' and if you're suffering you might be told to 'just drop your suffering. Just DROP it!' Not helpful. Maybe some of the neo teachers have Realised the Self, but that does not qualify them to teach. I've read and watched some Jeff Foster and suchlike. He may or may not be enlightened, but he just waffles...he has no proper teaching. He probably doesn't even understand true vedanta. Granted, siddhis can be developed on their own and have been for hundreds of years by hundreds/thousands of people. However, the powers or siddhis, which are part of the enlightenment process in my definition of the term 'enlightenment' arise because of the true understanding of reality. In my own words, it goes like this. In a dream, you can do anything you want. You can fly, walk through walls, shapeshift into a horse, manifest objects,, you can do anything you'd like. Normal life is also a dream, it is not real, just like a dream. If you truly understood that, had real knowledge of that, then the same extraordinary things you can do in a dream can also be done in this reality. However, I am not alone in my beliefs and definitions. Have you ever studied any of the Buddhist teachings? Ever hear of rainbow body?, Milerepa, Naropa, etc.. Dzogchen, Mahamudra teachings? link: http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A%20-%20Tibetan%20Buddhism/Authors/Gampopa/Mahamudra%20-%20The%20Very%20Essence%20of%20Mind/Mahamudra%20-%20The%20Very%20Essence%20Of%20Mind%20-%20By%20Gampopa.htm This sounds like shamanic kind of territory, which is cool. I'm quite drawn to that too. But you can get into all this kinda stuff and still not really know who you are. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with enlightenment. But it can be mighty cool. I have studied a lot of Buddhism. I have a great love and fondness for it. Ultimately I found I reached a dead end though. It derives much of its basis and background from vedanta, but I have found vedanta to be clearer and more logical in many ways. In fact, during the time of Shankara there were 'dharma wars' in India...not actual war or conflicts, but lively debates in which the good and noble would challenge masters from different traditions to public debates. Those that lost the debates either tended to convert or move along somewhere else. Shankara basically chased Buddhism out of India (in the nicest possible way haha) ...the logic of vedanta is pretty much untouchable. So, if you don't want to believe all that and stay with your definition of enlightenment, that is fine with me. It's just not for me. I remain open to all perspectives but as I have found vedanta to be the clearest path and have the utmost faith in its teachings, I defer to it. It's worked for millennia so who am I to argue? lol If someone volunteers themselves to be a teacher, to claim to be enlightened and to be able to show others how to become enlightened, then I have the right to assess the person, his/her teachings and gather as much information as I possibly can in order to help me with my decision. It is my right to judge, assess, examine critically, sense, evaluate and form opinions. I know it is hard when somebody else says that the person you idolize, whom you have been following and looking up to as the "real thing" is not the real thing, or has their doubts. Let me ask you these questions: How much money have you spent during your communications with Swartz? Has he ever visited you in the astral planes (like Ramana did for several people)? Has he ever given you shaktipat or sent you energy/bliss remotely? What exactly has he shown you that brought you a step closer to enlightenment? Buddha is said to have 'awoken' some people in the span of one or two weeks. How long have you been associating with Swartz? You're right, it's necessary to have faith in the teacher and the teachers or else it will not work. Before discounting Swartz I would say pick up his book. If you really don't like it you can sell it or pass it on. It's astounding, fascinating...liberating. It's not his teaching either, and this is an important point. He hasn't concocted his 'own' teaching as just about every spiritual teacher in the west does. It's basically a distillation of pure vedanta...and none of this neo advaita baloney. In fact he has an entire chapter dissecting neo advaita. I'm not immensely interested in Swartz as a person. I don't idolise him. He's just the instrument through which this teaching is being disseminated. I know some spiritual people to whom the teacher is somehow more important than the teaching. But since you asked. Swartz is not in the traditional spiritual teacher mould. He makes it very clear that he's NOT a guru...he doesn't even often call himself a teacher. Vedanta is just his true love and he enjoys talking about it (and my god he does it so well). He's just a guy doing his dharma. Totally down to earth, absolutely no airs or graces. He's very very blunt, a little sarcastic and that puts a lot of people off initially. He tells things like they are. I have no doubt that he is Self Realised or enlightened, but he's just a regular guy with it, which I actually find immensely cool. But again -- it doesn't actually matter too much what you think of him. Check out the book, you'll see he's a bloody superb teacher. To answer your questions; 1. Aside from my initial purchase of his book, I have spent 0 in my communications with him. There are dozens of books, texts, translations and 1000s of pages of e-satsangs (which are fascinating) on his site, and 100s of hours of audio downloads...all FREE. You can email him and get ongoing support and ask questions all for free. You can even have a skype chat of you so require, although it's suggested you give a donation for his time as after all the guy is in his 70s and has to eat. He's clearly not out to make a quick buck. 2 & 3: he's not a shaktipat guru. He's spoken at length about these and in particular is extremely disparaging of 'kalki avatar' and that diksha stuff. That a guru can transmit shakti is no evidence of enlightenment, there are countless examples of this.Shakti itself is fickle, like any energy, you can feel great for minutes/hours/days but it passes. Shakti does not generally enlighten people. It's just energy and energy is not opposed to self-ignorance/unenlightenment. It can make them 'energy junkies' though lol 4. Ok...I rarely talk about my own journey but here goes. I read his book in late 2011...amazed and deeply compelled. It requires multiple readings though there is SO much in it. Started listening to his audio talks April last year and have done so almost daily, really helpful for assimilating the teaching. We're basically rewiring lifetime/s of hardwired ignorance (not ignorance as in stupidity, ignorance in terms of who we are; misidentification). I participated in a week long web seminar on the bhagavad gita in October - it's incredibly working intensively 8 hrs a day with this teaching. Had email support. Am I enlightened? I wouldn't say that. Though even if I was I'd never make that claim, it's too loaded & misunderstood a word. I do know what I am now. I am still working with some binding vasanas that obscure this self knowledge though and keep pulling me into identification with body/mind/thoughts/desires/fears etc. Tip: if you really want to mess up your progress get into a relationship with someone you knew wasn't right for you This enlightenment stuff is hard work. You have to train yourself to constantly practise self inquiry, which is pulling your attention and identification with 'not-self' (the objects appearing in awareness including thoughts, emotions, vasanas, habits, patterns) and take a stand as the Self, as awareness. Then the binding vasanas gradually burn up but it takes time and work. Unless one is highly qualified and fully 'ripe' to pop. I will say that this teaching is the purest, most logical, insightful, comprehensive, beautiful and frankly idiot-proof (good for me!) that I've ever come across. You gotta be ready for it though. Instead of measuring up vedanta against you existing preconceptions about self and enlightenment etc, you have to set your existing ideas aside and see how THEY measure up against vedanta. Otherwise we'll just pick the bits that tie in with what we currently believe and set aside the rest. This won't work though. Again - this is not Swartz's teaching. Forget about him. It's pure vedanta. It's as old as time (well, more or less), it's beautiful, simple and it's a proven method of enlightenment, it's worked for millennia. My search ended. From hereon, it's just chipping away at remaining ignorance and misidentifcation of Self... Edited January 22, 2013 by Dreamlight Fugitive 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted January 22, 2013 Hello Dreamlight Fugitive, Although not addressed to me I think you have given/shared a great many reflections, thus thank you very much! I may have missed it somewhere in your texts and or the texts of others, but my (rhetorical like) question to you and others here is if there is one key meaning no one has mentioned even though getting close to it in many ways of important preparation... it is commonly alluded to by one or two words, by the way I believe most of its sisters or 1st cousins have already been mentioned, for instance one of them being love... Om Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amoyaan Posted January 22, 2013 Hello Dreamlight Fugitive, Although not addressed to me I think you have given/shared a great many reflections, thus thank you very much! I may have missed it somewhere in your texts and or the texts of others, but my (rhetorical like) question to you and others here is if there is one key meaning no one has mentioned even though getting close to it in many ways of important preparation... it is commonly alluded to by one or two words, by the way I believe most of its sisters or 1st cousins have already been mentioned, for instance one of them being love... Om Hi Bob I'm not entirely sure what your question is, could you maybe rephrase it? I'd be happy to answer. I might sound like a vedanta maniac but I'm not, I just really love it as it was like coming home after 15 years of spiritual searching. I've studied it intensively for a year so I'm really happy to answer genuine questions 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
