J Warg

How to become less blind

Recommended Posts

This past Friday I spoke to my friend Don Abrams. Teacher Of Kriya for over 30 years. 

 

I commented I did not think Kriya could bring people to the point of feeling energy let alone the triple divine qualities.

 

He swiftly corrected me saying that the very practice of first Kriya was designed to do just that.

 

So I must defer to his experience and retract my earlier words on this forum and ask others to forget them.

 

Thank you.

Edited by Pilgrim
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The energy coming out of someone's head and a master becoming a saint after enlightenment is a misunderstanding sorry.

 

We may be looking for something special, that our aura becomes bright or special things happen during awakening BUT enlightenment is the sudden realisation of what you are and have always been.  All that changes is the knowing, the understanding.  So, if a halo is on top of your head, it was there already.  If you become saint, well that is only because you can now rest and be tranquil.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Wayfarer said:

enlightenment is the sudden realisation of what you are and have always been.  All that changes is the knowing, the understanding.

 

Again - that is not enlightenment. That’s awakening. These are very different.

 

I think it’s normal to ‘lower the bar’ to a ‘height’ we find more acceptable or realistic. But the classical teachings are quite clear about what enlightenment is and what awakening is and what they aren’t. And the two are profoundly different even if along the same line of development.

 

This is important.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they are the same.  And there is no line of development.

Edited by Wayfarer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, freeform said:

the classical teachings are quite clear about what enlightenment is

what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

Again - that is not enlightenment. That’s awakening. These are very different.

 

I think it’s normal to ‘lower the bar’ to a ‘height’ we find more acceptable or realistic. But the classical teachings are quite clear about what enlightenment is and what awakening is and what they aren’t. And the two are profoundly different even if along the same line of development.

 

This is important.

 

1 hour ago, Wayfarer said:

No, they are the same.  And there is no line of development.

 

I guess the difference is partly whether you're coming at it from a Buddhist or Daoist perspective.

 

I'm happy to see the difference between awakening and enlightenment as the first being a brief experience of (what-ever-it-is) and the second as being permanently in that state.

 

However, from my Buddhist past, I would attribute the same qualities to someone who was awakened as to someone who was enlightened.

 

Like in many cases, differences of opinions are merely different interpretations of the same words, but given they are the tools we use to discuss, it's worth having these semantic debates.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is worth having the debates.  Awakening in Buddhism is enlightenment.  The Buddha was enlightened and then said "I am Awake", he later realised this was an error and called himself the Thus Come One.  Whichever way we call it there is only one experience that is being discussed.  It is the same in Christianity of Jesus healing the blind - they aren't blind, he helped them to see the Truth.

 

That Truth might be glimpsed.  I think in Zen it is called Kensho.  This is not awakening, it is a glimpse possibly, and then something of the mind interrupts it, or experiences fear and the glimpse vanishes.  What is being glimpsed is always present (wherever we look).

 

How does a person recognise what is currently staring them in the face?  Well, you don't need methods.  You don't need debate.  You need to stop and just be, like a wild animal without a thought of it, then it might be seen :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wayfarer said:

And there is no line of development.

 

This whole ‘we’re enlightened already, we just need to realise it’ is a nice modern invention.

 

Classically spiritual cultivation is a linear process - a path of development.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, freeform said:

 

Again - that is not enlightenment. That’s awakening. These are very different.

 

I think it’s normal to ‘lower the bar’ to a ‘height’ we find more acceptable or realistic. But the classical teachings are quite clear about what enlightenment is and what awakening is and what they aren’t. And the two are profoundly different even if along the same line of development.

 

This is important.

Could you provide a source for these teachings? A book of some value perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, freeform said:

Its the difference between a Sheng Ren and a Zhen Ren.

oh, you said

Quote

the classical teachings are quite clear about what enlightenment is

i was hoping to hear the concrete definition of it; not how it affects two other undefined things. So, is there a clear definition of enlightenment in the classical texts?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, freeform said:

 

This whole ‘we’re enlightened already, we just need to realise it’ is a nice modern invention.

 

Classically spiritual cultivation is a linear process - a path of development.

 

2 hours ago, freeform said:

 

Its the difference between a Sheng Ren and a Zhen Ren.

 

oh freeform, I don't feel wayfarer is saying there's no spiritual path, more that there's little/no difference between awakening and enlightenment.

 

using words that don't make sense to me does not help me understand what point you are making - what are sheng ren and a zhen ren?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, freeform said:

 

This whole ‘we’re enlightened already, we just need to realise it’ is a nice modern invention.

 

Classically spiritual cultivation is a linear process - a path of development.

 

I know what you mean but it is not a linear process.  I am a man, and if I came to you and you could see I was a man but I couldn't (lol) then if I were practising lots of exercises, singing chants, meditating, and who knows what, you would probably think I were quite foolish.  So, I say, well you know, it's a linear process to becoming a man, I need to develop into it, and simply telling me I'm a man isn't cutting it.

Whether you agree or not doesn't change what you are.  I'm not saying that you are enlightened already.  Enlightenment does not exist, neither does ignorance, and yet both enlightenment and ignorance appear to exist.  The Dao is all opposites.  It is simultaneously ignorance and awakening - these concepts don't occur outside of it.  I am saying that you are THAT which when you experience it is enlightenment.  You are THAT whether you do anything or nothing at all.  That's what I meant :)

It is not a modern invention.  I have experienced it for myself.  I know how I am.  I don't know what that is.  And whatever that is, looks from within and through my eyes at all that is Itself.  And that's it.  A method, a linear process never made that happen.

Edited by Wayfarer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, freeform said:

Again - that is not enlightenment. That’s awakening. These are very different.

I was hoping that someone would make comments on the next step after awakening, and enlightenment, which in my understanding is creating. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

oh, you said

i was hoping to hear the concrete definition of it; not how it affects two other undefined things. So, is there a clear definition of enlightenment in the classical texts?

 

Nope :)

 

I don't think there's even a word for enlightenment.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Miffymog said:

oh freeform, I don't feel wayfarer is saying there's no spiritual path

 

I think he's trying to use this circular type logic that I've heard countless times.

 

When it comes from a person with a high level of attainment and in person then it can transmit a certain type of truth. In fact, anything a person of genuine achievement says will transmit a certain type of truth. It's a way of talking that navigates its way through a student's mind and reaches a deeper truth than logic.

 

However, this sort of idea has been constantly regurgitated by every New Age spiritual guru going - and it doesn't mean much - just like the difference between listening to a live orchestra vs reading the sheet music.

 

I'm not saying Wayfarer isn't a highly achieved being. I wouldn't know. But this sort of talk is lost on me after having heard it over and over and over again from new-age and neo-Advaita type teachers.

 

When you spend time with classical teachers the type of things they say mirror these verses:

 

Inactive when one should be active,

Lazy though young and strong,

Disheartened in one's resolves,

Such an indolent, lethargic person

Doesn't find the path of insight.

 

Wisdom arises from practice;

Without practice it decays.

Knowing this two-way path for gain and loss,

Conduct yourself so that wisdom grows.

 

PS - it's always hugely unpopular! So they rarely talk this way outside of the 'inner door' group.

Edited by freeform
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

How about:  "The Sage"?

Not sure about the sage, seems to me like the sage gets trotted out around here to bolster people’s point of view.

 

Must be tiresome for the sage, whoever the hell that is.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be the talk of new ageism, I don't know that kind of stuff, I practise Daoism.  It is the talk of Buddha, of Lao Tzu, of Cold Mountain, of Ikkyu and so on.  Verse one of the Dao de Jing ends by stating that the "Mystery" is darkness within darkness.  This is quite an important line if you wish to understand the DDJ and awakening.

 

The Dao is present whether people know it or not.  It is Presence.  It is the same thing that Moses saw alight in the bush, that Kashyapa could see in the flower that Buddha held, it was in the sky as Jesus was being baptised, it was what Siddhartha Gautama noticed in Venus as he sat beneath the tree.  It is everywhere and in everyone only we tend not to notice it.  That does not mean it is not here.

The Dao is the inside of us and the outside of us, therefore the boundary that we see as our "self" is not a boundary.  We cannot step closer to it or further away from it, we cannot take from it or add to it.  Yes there are classical books that have method upon method of helping people to realise their truth.  There are also classic examples of people committing human sacrifice in Mayan cultures but we don't do it today.  We once prayed to the sun for good harvests but most people don't do that either.  When new wisdom comes to light the old ways often die out.  Some people cling to those ways, and that's their choice.

 

When the disciples asked Jesus where they must go to enter the Kingdom of the Father, he pointed to the ground and said "here".  Zen monks asked Joshu where they must go to enter the Pure Land, he drew a line in the soil with his staff and said "right here".  You can choose a practice of simplicity or complexity.  The Truth, being true to all things must be recognisable in all things, for that's where it is found.  It is in you and all the things you consider to not be you.  

 

This is not new ageism.  It is centuries old.  In Chan Buddhism it is said that the subject and the object is the same.  In the Gospel of St Thomas, Jesus said "At first you were one, then you became two.  Now you are two what can be done?"

In the Bible, in Exodus, God is quoted as saying "No man can see me and live." This does not mean that the appearance of God is so terrible that a person will die should they witness it.  It means that in seeing it their idea of a self ends for they come to realise in that moment that what they view (object) and what they thought of as themselves (subject) are One.

 

It is quite arrogant to describe the Classics but when you approach matters you do not understand about them, you deem them worthless and ridicule them.  They are central to what you are studying.

 

Now, the teacher who described awakening as seeing a light is not describing awakening.  He or she is describing a spiritual epiphany as many people do with near-death experiences.  If you are turning to the light, then you are turning away from the darkness.  Then you have two where there was one.  But the Truth that is sought through religion has no concept of being split.  To see things separately, to think you must make lots of effort to come to what you already Are is the sickness of Mankind and the source of much of our problems.

 

It is to misunderstand Nature.

 

The idea of transcending the regular self to a Higher Self, or to end karma is mentally reaching away from your Self.  How can you then arrive at the Self?

 

If you don't understand these points then nothing of Daoism will make sense.  Wu Wei is centered on these very aspects.  Pu is right in the middle of it.  The stillness that is spoken of throughout nearly all of Daoist scriptures refers to it.  It is about dropping concepts and methods and "sitting until the mud clears".

 

If you don't understand this yet have a teacher, and the teacher is telling you that you must do many things and it will take forever to get there - get another teacher.  If this annoys you, look and find that annoyance for there is the key to greater understanding.

 

No one needs a book, a scripture or a practice.  Things simply is already.

 

To return to my first point - "Darkness within Darkness" refers to the realisation of experiencing no-self.  This is a mystery and this is darkness for the mind cannot look into it and find anything it understands, it must experience the loss of self.  In the DDJ, Chuang Tzu and the Huainantzu it plainly states that "sages find their being in nonbeing." 

Further darkness relates to the fact we must forget the Self, the Dao.  When this is so, we are returned to our nature, like that of a deer seeing life before it without a concept of one thing or another but just living, just being.  Here is the stillness of the mind referred to in V16 of the DDJ, the stillness Buddha said was all the Bodhisattvas needed, and in the Bible "Be Still and Know that I am God".

 

This is not going around in circles.  This is direct.  Do you understand it?  No.  You cannot understand it, you cannot rationalise it.  It is the opposite of our experiences until we experience IT.  There could be a light, there could be darkness, there could be figures, their could simply be a new understanding BUT if it is awakening it will be an experience where there is no self to be found.  What follows is the undoing of years, if not decades of conditioning centered around a self that is now known to not exist.  The self is Existance.  The not-self is also Existence.  When there is no concept of one or the other - Dao.

Thanks for reading.

 

 

 

Edited by Wayfarer
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wayfarer said:

It could be the talk of new ageism

 

The newageism is talking like you’re writing the classics. The classics are classic because they’re complete and they’re written from a certain perspective.

 

If you go ahead and say that actually you’re a Sheng Ren, and your words are coming from the divine light of Yuan Shen then I’ll stop harassing you and listen closely :)

 

If, however, just like the rest of us, you’re a spiritual cultivator who understands the message of the ancients but hasn't reached sainthood yet, then I suggest you talk like a cultivator, not a saint. Because the pitfall is that your Acquired Mind will use these words to build another (great looking) layer of little self. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using your logic you should not be listened to.  Lao Tzu explained that the Way cannot be spoken of, yet he/they wrote 81 verses about just that.  Buddha realised there was no-self but spent 41 years before other people teaching.  Jesus was nailed to a cross for his views.

 

I'm not trying to convince.  I was writing it for others who might wish to see an alternative view than yours.  Now I have said that, it is up to them to decide which sounds closest to the Truth?  Your way that entails many years of practice and struggle, or my way, that directs people as best as I can to the Truth that is right before them.  It doesn't mean it is successful, but it has been.

 

So, thanks for your point of view, you can let go of it now as I will mine ;)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites