Recognizing Reality

[manitou]

GMP - that was one fine treatise. I don't know that I've ever seen so much (what I consider to be) enlightened material in a relatively small space. It just seems to have it all. Reminds me greatly of a book I have read probably six times - and every time I read it, my eyes see something different because I am different with each reading: "Advanced Course in Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism" by Yogi Ramacharaka.

 

Thank you so much for the link. The onion peels.

[GrandmasterP]

He's got a shop too...

http://shop.shiningworld.com/

 

Spin off from Hari Krishna's , chap who operates the site does 'inspirational speaking' and such.

It's a living for him and much of what passes for 'wisdom' from one of our chums who posts here is cut and pasted from that shining world.com

 

For me Advaita is a bit like sectarian Buddhism, they use polysyllabic and alien ( to us) words to describe states and experiences common to all cultivation paths.

Somebody once said that " Any religion that requires you to learn a foreign language isn't the religion for you."

 

Edited August 25, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[manitou]

(Why isn't the cut and paste function working on my brand new computer??)

 

"Somebody once said that 'Any religion that requires you to learn a foreign language isn't the religion for you.' "

 

I so understand this. We may find entry to the path in a foreign religion or line of thought, but in order to come full circle we seem to have to go back and readdress that which we were brought up with - if only to remove the resentment toward it. Does that make sense?

 

The spokes of a wheel that meet in the void in the center.

Edited August 25, 2014 by manitou

[GrandmasterP]

For sure.

Nothing much sadder to look on than a corn fed lad born and raised in Wisconsin prancing about in a saffron robe with his head shaved pretending to be a Tibetan or some such.

It's their mothers that I feel most sorry for.

On the plus side most of 'em will grow out of it eventually.

 

Edited August 25, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[3bob]

There are several worlds (so to speak) that get can get sadder than that! (besides in a past life the lad may have been a "some such".

[manitou]

Re: the scattered mind. It seems like the trend is getting worse, not better. It's hard to find someone not twittering on their cell phones now. So many people are no longer in the here and now in any sense; their consciousness is focused instead on reacting to the tweet or text they just got. How much more fragmented can it get? Focus is becoming a thing of the past in the general populous.

 

I keep remembering that in the DDJ there is reference to 'things must be inflated before they can be deflated', or words to that effect. The idea is the same. I can't help but think that the whole enchilada will indeed end up in a collective consciousness that understands Unity - however, before that can come to pass, we must go through this fractal phenomena.

 

Or perhaps that's just wishful thinking.

Edited August 27, 2014 by manitou

[Phenomniverse]

In Complete Reality terminology, the shining mind is the basis of stable awareness, not the conscious awareness momentarily empty of its habitual contents that beginners often mistake for the shining mind. In terms of meditation, the shining mind is insight, brought to the fore by subtle concentration in the midst of ordinary circumstances. The shining mind is open awareness, nonpsychological immediate knowledge of reality as is. Recognizing reality is wordless insight into actualities as they are without notions of existential personality considerations. This is bypassing thought differentiating psychological ramifications and outcomes relative to self and other.

 

The scattered mind is its reference point in the ancient Complete Reality glossaries representing the roving human mentality. The human mentality becomes the shining mind when it forgets its reifying mental patterns.

Deci although you're speaking about a Taoist school of thought here, your reference to a juxtaposition of insight and concentration is reminiscent of Buddhist thought. Would you say that Buddhist mindfulness practice is a valid method of establishing or cultivating stability in the recognition of reality?

[deci belle]

Re: the scattered mind. It seems like the trend is getting worse, not better. It's hard to find someone not twittering on their cell phones now. So many people are no longer in the here and now in any sense; their consciousness is focused instead on reacting to the tweet or text they just got. How much more fragmented can it get? Focus is becoming a thing of the past in the general populous.

 

I keep remembering that in the DDJ there is reference to 'things must be inflated before they can be deflated', or words to that effect. The idea is the same. I can't help but think that the whole enchilada will indeed end up in a collective consciousness that understands Unity - however, before that can come to pass, we must go through this fractal phenomena.

 

Or perhaps that's just wishful thinking.

 

These are the kids, really, and others whose aspirations never evolve beyond the need to belong to an adolescent field of desire to be hip.

 

Many cannot sustain this charade for long, either for reasons of responsibility, health or conscious evolution. It is a cultural veneer fed by manufacturers and advertising— not that the technology isn't a total wash, and not that it can be stopped. But not all people growing up or even grown up nowadays are media-victims. Those who cannot stop texting are the same ones who would have been likewise unaware of or helpless before their own internal dialogue in bygone eras.

 

The general percentage of people ready to aspire to reality probably has never been above .05% at any time in human history.

 

The reference to the chapter in the Laotzu is applicable to conscious self-refinement in that if one is ready for diminishing or augmenting an element of character, and one is conscious of the timing involved, then allowing for or mitigating influential elements can precipitate a shift opposed to the incipiently anticipated trend.

 

It is absolutely a matter of knowledge of self, others, the physical and/or psychological terrain.

 

Don't we indulge the men who would take the bait, and drop the ones who do? Same thing. It works on us.

 

Think of the bowl of money traditionally made available to monks in case they need to visit the local brothel.

 

Want another example? How about stocking up on ice cream as if you are going to indulge when you've noticed you have been indulging. Seems counterintuitive, but its manipulability is evident in behavioral, political and military sciences. Why? It's characteristic of conditioning, and no one knows why.

 

I'm not talking about those who are craving a binge and stocking up for a bender, mind you. I'm referring to those who are in the position to manipulate and maneuver consciously with the personal power of unbending intent.

 

It's not a matter of moving against. It's manipulating a manifestation of change deliberately.

 

There is an ancient school attributed to an esoteric branch of taoism, or that enjoys a veneer of taoist application called the School of Letting All Hell Break Loose. Same idea.

Edited August 27, 2014 by deci belle

[deci belle]

Deci although you're speaking about a Taoist school of thought here, your reference to a juxtaposition of insight and concentration is reminiscent of Buddhist thought. Would you say that Buddhist mindfulness practice is a valid method of establishing or cultivating stability in the recognition of reality?

 

Absolutely, Phenom~ at the highest levels of subtle practice, Chan buddhism and Complete Reality taoism are identical.

 

It's not so much a method of stability other than using essence itself to see reality divorced of self-reifying patterns. Stability is the nature of open awareness itself. If one can give the psychological neurosis dependent on externals the ghost and make the subtle shift to open wonder, stability is inherent.

 

In working with essence directly, conditioned patterns are bypassed by activation of nonpsychological awareness. The human mentality can then learn by example that it is unnecessary in the process. It is actually a very compassionate and civil manner of conscious evolution for those whose sensitivities have no need for dramas paying obeisance to the demiurge.

 

The demiurge amounts to a bellhop in the final analysis. Give his bald head a kiss on your way through~ he'll blush.❤︎

 

 

 

ed note: add 2nd paragraph

Edited August 27, 2014 by deci belle

[Perceiver]

I always find it funny when people claim to be enlightened yet do arrogant and unnecessarily confrontative posts, as Deci Belle does in this thread.

 

Doesn't seem so enlightened to me.

[Bearded Dragon]

I always find it funny when people claim to be enlightened yet do arrogant and unnecessarily confrontative posts, as Deci Belle does in this thread.

 

Doesn't seem so enlightened to me.

 

Enlightenment has nothing to do with playing nice in other people's eyes. Sometimes people need a bit of a kick in the backside whether they like it or not.

 

Your idea of enlightenment is created by the very delusion that this thread is about. That's ok. I think everyone starts like this. It would serve you well to get what deci tries to say in her posts. Maybe you'll soon ditch the image of enlightenment that you've created in your head. It will never be correct.

[Brian]

 

Enlightenment has nothing to do with playing nice in other people's eyes. Sometimes people need a bit of a kick in the backside whether they like it or not.

 

Your idea of enlightenment is created by the very delusion that this thread is about. That's ok. I think everyone starts like this. It would serve you well to get what deci tries to say in her posts. Maybe you'll soon ditch the image of enlightenment that you've created in your head. It will never be correct.

A few years ago, I must admit that I found deci belle outrageous and almost delusional.

 

One day, however, a switch flipped "somewhere deep inside" and suddenly I understood.

 

Now, I seek out her posts.

 

[manitou]

The School of Letting all Hell Break Loose. I love that. My personal version of this is 'letting the chips fall where they may'.

 

I'm not sure the passage in Lao Tzu refers only to our personal expansion and deflation as to character, although that is certainly its most imminent usage for us individually. It seems to apply to communal trends as well. Take for example the Tea Party - it certainly had its expansion; but what has it done but to split the republican party in two, thereby deflating it. I think this can be seen when situations are viewed with a long lens.

 

We are the manifester of our lives. Communally, we manifest world behavior. I can't imagine that the dynamic would stop at the individual.

 

I know plenty of folks who are fragmented from their gadgets, but I don't think it's always out of wanting to be hip. I think they really believe they are connecting with others - like those older folks who are always showing pictures of their grandkids, etc. So sure, maybe they are actually connecting better with their own families. Maybe they're even making more and more friends on Facebook and connecting with them too, expanding their universe. But that universe is virtual, lol. They ignore the person sitting across from them at the lunch table, and they opt instead for their virtual universe, ignoring the one in front of them. I do have several friends who do this; I no longer wish to sit across the table when they're doing this, it's a waste of time for me. I mean - they're polite and all and will always say 'Excuse me' when the darn thing buzzes. But damn, lol.

Edited August 27, 2014 by manitou

[Perceiver]

Enlightenment has nothing to do with playing nice in other people's eyes. Sometimes people need a bit of a kick in the backside whether they like it or not.

 

Your idea of enlightenment is created by the very delusion that this thread is about. That's ok. I think everyone starts like this. It would serve you well to get what deci tries to say in her posts. Maybe you'll soon ditch the image of enlightenment that you've created in your head. It will never be correct.

 

To be honest I don't know what enlightenment is and I have never really studied the topic much. I probably reacted to what I saw as a subtle hostile behaviour in Deci's posts towards Goldisheavy, who questioned her ideas. And it didn't seem that enlightened to me: Why be hostile when you can be friendly?

 

But that aside I think you make an interesting point. And it actually makes me wanna reread Deci Belle's posts.

[deci belle]

I always find it funny when people claim to be enlightened yet do arrogant and unnecessarily confrontative posts, as Deci Belle does in this thread.

 

Doesn't seem so enlightened to me.

 

Walk a mile in my flip-flops, dear~ you obviously have not done much research into the lives of prior illuminates have you.

 

No matter… Just make sure you walk every step you take in YOUR shoes, and don't worry about others, hmmm?

 

Nothing is gained by complete perfect enlightenment. One of the early Chan patriarchs was poisoned six times over the course of his tenure. He died by poisoning, by the way. Just forget your ideas about how enlightening being should be.

 

By the time beginners have ears for anyone worthy of note, of course they are only going to be perceptive to the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and the teacher's hagiography has been fluffed and buffed like a movie star for at least a thousand years by that time.

 

Like I said, enlightenment isn't a thing beyond you. IT IS YOU. Why haven't you seen your nature? Don't waste time thinking about what enlightened people should be like. Use the same delusional phenomena I do to refine yourself. It's all there is to work with. Are you so friendly with every asshole you meet?

 

Who is it that thinks someone doesn't act enlightened? You would do well to find out who that is and then we can see how you do in the same circumstances while you are then able to be knowing full well that no one is not this same enlightened mind. Should I not also wear 5" stilettos and a $500 bra just because I'm enlightened? I hope at least that you have the sense to crank one of a number of 50 to 100 watt amps to meltdown distortion more often than you bathe— as I do.❤︎

 

 

 

ed note: spell "bathe" correctly.

Edited August 27, 2014 by deci belle

[Perceiver]

Walk a mile in my flip-flops, dear~ you obviously have not done much research into the lives of prior illuminates have you.

 

No matter… Just make sure you walk every step you take in YOUR shoes, and don't worry about others, hmmm?

 

Nothing is gained by complete perfect enlightenment. One of the early Chan patriarchs was poisoned six times over the course of his tenure. He died by poisoning, by the way. Just forget your ideas about how enlightening being should be.

 

By the time beginners have ears for anyone worthy of note, of course they are only going to be perceptive to the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and the teacher's hagiography has been fluffed and buffed like a movie star for at least a thousand years by that time.

 

Like I said, enlightenment isn't a thing beyond you. IT IS YOU. Why haven't you seen your nature? Don't waste time thinking about what enlightened people should be like. Use the same delusional phenomena I do to refine yourself. It's all there is to work with. Are you so friendly with every asshole you meet?

 

Who is it that thinks someone doesn't act enlightened? You would do well to find out who that is and then we can see how you do in the same circumstances while you are then able to be knowing full well that no one is not this same enlightened mind. Should I not also wear 5" stilettos and a $500 bra just because I'm enlightened? I hope at least that you have the sense to crank one of a number of 50 to 100 watt amps to meltdown distortion more often than you bathe— as I do.❤︎

 

 

 

ed note: spell "bathe" correctly.

 

I find your post interesting, but there's one thing I don't understand:

 

It seems to me that you say I am not enlightened because I still identify with my mind: I think, and associate the thinker with "me", even though the real me is not the thinker but rather the awareness that per definition is not the thinker. As Sarte said: "I am because I am", instead of the old "I think, therefore I am".

 

But isn't there two types or "levels" of enlightenment? The personal one which is to recognize and live the notion that the real you is not the thinker but the awareness that precedes the thinker, and the cosmic enlightenment which is to discover your connection and oneness with all that is? And if someone is cosmically enlightened would they not be interested in being friendly with other people as they recognize themselves in them?

 

 

[deci belle]

Mind is one, unborn. Therefore there is no am, not because of an absence of a relativistic notion pertaining to nonexistence of "other", but because no thing is the rule. In fact, the quality of otherness of the homeland of nothing whatsoever is a device of taoist alchemic process. Recognition of reality being flesh and blood entry into the inconceivable mystery of reality is this very no thing being the essence of creation and its evolution in terms of time.

 

The world is you. As such, there is no separate nature to act on.

 

There are no two sides of the same coin. The mystery is whole, undifferentiated.

 

Seeing reality is not apart from delusion; authentic permanent experience of the real is by virtue of delusion's evolution.

 

Seeing delusion as delusion is reality. Seeing delusion as reality is delusion. Stepping off the cliff and accepting one's function, who would dare to act on one's own behalf?

 

Selfless adaption to everyday ordinary situations is matching one's potential to creation, therefore one's actions do not admit of one's own power. This is enlightening activity.

 

It's a mystery. Effective cultivation of the empty field is deep plowing through unified sameness void of ideas of self and other.

 

Difference is undeniable, sameness is relative to other, not the self. The way depends on other, adaption is up to the self. There is no fixed pattern.

 

Seeing reality as is, the worldly dream partakes of true reality because we personally bring the power to the fore by our own impersonal adaptivity. We come to radiate the virtue of enlightening qualities because gradual refinement of the human mentality becomes the abode of the tao.

 

The expression of the power of tao is its virtue, people's inherent enlightening being.

[deci belle]

Perciever, mr Gold's penchant for insincere leading questions hasn't changed since he came on board. The reason for his tarbaby questioning is obvious to me. I just crammed it back where it came from.

 

BTW, your comment is totally off-topic.

 

Brian said:

A few years ago, I must admit that I found deci belle outrageous and almost delusional.

One day, however, a switch flipped "somewhere deep inside" and suddenly I understood.

Now, I seek out her posts.

 

The key phrase is "somewhere deep inside".

 

Brian didn't flip the switch. The switch just switched. That's how seeing is. No one can take credit for that. And that's precisely who can be credited for recognition of reality, i.e.: nobody.

 

The true human being with no status is who knows reality. Why? Because the real is what recognizes reality. Real human being is every bit a function of inherent nonpsychological wisdom as is ego the function of the conditioned psychological apparatus of the being who is going to die.

 

Neither real human being nor the false psychological consciousness has an attributable self-identity. Awareness is itself one's identity. Since awareness is selfless, conditioned identities are temporary phantasmic phenomena. Most people never conceive of arriving at the basis of true identity, inconceivable, blazing in your skull before your parents were born.

 

Your own mind is it. The Unborn is itself the means to read these words. There is no other mind. What is it?

 

 

 

 

ed note: change reference to Goldisheavy to "mr Gold" per Moderator's directive

Edited September 1, 2014 by deci belle

[manitou]

Deci said: "Stepping off the cliff and accepting one's function who would dare to act on one's own behalf?"

 

 

This seems somewhat aligned with the verse in the DDJ (Yutang, ch. 20):

 

"That which men fear

Is indeed to be feared;

But, alas, distant yet is the dawn (of awakening)"

 

And this is why the sage comes to no harm; because he knows no fear because he is aware of the delusion. Agreed - seeing delusion as delusion is reality.

 

And yet this is our biggest challenge. Until there is enlightenment, there is always the voice that says "Yeah, but what if?...." Once the fear of death has been transcended there is truly nothing to fear. Once we experience the golden current of the past, present, and future, we know that our consciousness remains, in body or out, and it matters not which state we are in.

 

Once we discover the consciousness of knowing who We Really Are, what is there to fear? As humans, how much of our conscious time is spent in this consciousness? For those of us who have evolved to seek the answers to these questions, this ultimately becomes the Practice, after everything is said and done. And as Deci said, the gradual refinement of the human mentality becomes the abode of the Dao.

[deci belle]

Yum!!❤︎

[3bob]

Seeing delusion as delusion is more delusion - if or when one compares it with the saying of, "samsara correctly seen is nirvana" (paraphrased more or less per Buddhist lines)

 

Btw, I'd say mixing Buddhism and Taoism has some problems but I'm no expert on such nor am I interested in self-proclaiming experts on such, (which Manitou is not) so have at it folks and hopefully humpty-dumpty can be put back together again after he falls along with inner light shinning forth.

[3bob]

I find your post interesting, but there's one thing I don't understand:

 

It seems to me that you say I am not enlightened because I still identify with my mind: I think, and associate the thinker with "me", even though the real me is not the thinker but rather the awareness that per definition is not the thinker. As Sarte said: "I am because I am", instead of the old "I think, therefore I am".

 

But isn't there two types or "levels" of enlightenment? The personal one which is to recognize and live the notion that the real you is not the thinker but the awareness that precedes the thinker, and the cosmic enlightenment which is to discover your connection and oneness with all that is? And if someone is cosmically enlightened would they not be interested in being friendly with other people as they recognize themselves in them?

 

 

 

Not bad dude, and I'd say your instincts are correct regardless of anyone else trying to dismiss them with fancy sounding blah, blah, blah...

Edited August 28, 2014 by 3bob

[Bearded Dragon]

I find your post interesting, but there's one thing I don't understand:

 

It seems to me that you say I am not enlightened because I still identify with my mind: I think, and associate the thinker with "me", even though the real me is not the thinker but rather the awareness that per definition is not the thinker. As Sarte said: "I am because I am", instead of the old "I think, therefore I am".

 

But isn't there two types or "levels" of enlightenment? The personal one which is to recognize and live the notion that the real you is not the thinker but the awareness that precedes the thinker, and the cosmic enlightenment which is to discover your connection and oneness with all that is? And if someone is cosmically enlightened would they not be interested in being friendly with other people as they recognize themselves in them?

 

 

 

The first one you mentioned is an intellectual understanding. That is setting up the path to the 2nd. It's all it's good for.

 

The 2nd is experiential understanding. This is the whole enlightenment thing, but you don't have to have sudden realisation to reap the benefits of abiding in the Unborn. Enlightenment in itself is delusion because the self that becomes enlightened is not the real self. The awareness-self cannot become enlightened. The point of being nice to people begs the question of who you are being nice to. It's the illusion-self of others. Therefore compassion would be to help break down that illusion by any helpful means, no matter how it is perceived at the surface level. In seeing yourself in others it would possibly be a great disservice to yourself to not want to break down the illusion of others by any means.

[3bob]

A true guru is a friend to all (with nice pointing in that direction although that particular word is very limited), such is revealed even if a true guru has to be stern or whatever at times, thus why is true guru friends to all because Spirit is friends to all of which there is no other.

 

For those tired of negative sounding connotations from so called "advanced teachings" related to being a human being I'd suggest you check out the Upanishads.

 

Om

Edited August 28, 2014 by 3bob

[Perceiver]

The first one you mentioned is an intellectual understanding. That is setting up the path to the 2nd. It's all it's good for.

 

The 2nd is experiential understanding. This is the whole enlightenment thing, but you don't have to have sudden realisation to reap the benefits of abiding in the Unborn. Enlightenment in itself is delusion because the self that becomes enlightened is not the real self. The awareness-self cannot become enlightened. The point of being nice to people begs the question of who you are being nice to. It's the illusion-self of others. Therefore compassion would be to help break down that illusion by any helpful means, no matter how it is perceived at the surface level. In seeing yourself in others it would possibly be a great disservice to yourself to not want to break down the illusion of others by any means.

 

Yes, I think I know what you mean: You cannot become enlightened because the real you is the awareness that per definition already is. And therefore, enlightenment refers to a false self that cracks and fades away as soon as the real self takes over. Or rather, the real self does not take over because it does not do anything. It simply is, and the false self is no more. And therefore enlightenment does not exist because there is nothing that can be enlightened. There is only the awareness that is, and the delusions that no longer repeat their own patterns of self-reference.

 

If I've understood it right then that is actually a very good point.

 

But there's something I don't understand about Deci's posts. If you want people to get the idea then there's no need for doing it in ways that create unnecessary irritation and sadness in them (irritation is sadness). She could be just as effective - perhaps even more - if she simply stated things in a relaxed and friendly way. There's something about her posts: The overly intellectual language, the constant re-editing of her posts, the deliberate flaunting of her sexuality, the belittling of other posters. All of this has the mark of an ego that *wants* to be perceived in a certain way; that wants to be desired and admired; an ego that craves attention and high social value; an ego that sits in front of the computer and thoroughly enjoys and wants this dance that is put on.

 

I think Deci has understood a fundamental point about enlightenment. But I'm not sure she lives it. Because if she did, she would realize that some of her posts cause unnecessary sadness. And the only thing that is going to accomplish is to drive away those who react to their own ego's perception of insults. Such people could be moved to enlightenment quicker by showing an appreciation and understanding for their ideas, followed by one's own and more complex idea of enlightenment. Thereby they would not automatically reject your ideas due to their ego, but would gently be convinced of the inherent truth in your own and more complex belief. Quicker enlightenment, with less sadness.

 

And my guess is that those are the ones she is pretending to "enlight" isn't it? If not, there would be no need for her posting this thread in this forum.