"How hard or easy is it?" is an erroneous question to ask on the Spiritual Path

[dwai]

2 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

The awakening business is a bit above my paygrade as of the moment, but, for me, the metaphor of the poem provides a kind of aha moment.

I think you’ve got it figured out quite well — but I can understand if you are reluctant to name it  

2 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

I also like the idea that it´s the light inside me that is leading me towards the light.  It is the light that makes you remember.  The reason I´m interested in spiritual things is because I´m already attracted by some sort of glimmer, an intuition, of the light.  It´s already there inside me and my attraction to the light is not separate from the light itself.  If that makes any sense...

Beautiful!
 

We already are that which we seek...and yet, seeking, and realization are not mutually exclusive.

 

The wave realizes it is nothing but water, same as the mighty ocean. 

 

For a bit more clarity about the OP — I find it very interesting to see how different people look at this topic in different ways.
 

@forestofemptiness’ post about Layman Pang is quite apropos to this most interesting conundrum. 

 

The paradox of the “awakened” waking up to one’s innate awake nature leads to the questions — “Who was asleep? Who wakes up?”

 

I asked about the perspective of the waker and the dreamer because when the waker acts in the waking world, the dreamer is forgotten. And yet, when the dreamer wakes up in the dreaming world, the waker is forgotten. The remembering and forgetting interplay with the waker and the dreamer. But that which lights up both the remembrance and the forgetting — that IS our awake nature.

 

[escott]

The original post has its origins in Advaita Vedanta. As someone who has written a lot of software I liken the moment of enlightenment to an Event in a State Machine. In some was Predetermination may even be at play. Everything is in motion - cause and effect. You are born and things beyond your control happen to you. At every moment your conscience understanding is in a particular state. If the right event occurs you get bumped into a new state. The potential is always there. If you happen to be in the right state and the right event occurs then AHA! I get it now! Sometimes it happens sooner, sometimes it happens later. But, the only way for it to happen at all is to keep looking for it.

[Bindi]

Quote

The fourth of the five koshas is vijnanamaya kosha—the wisdom sheath. Vijnanamaya encompasses intuition and intellect. It can be thought of as the witness mind, or that aspect of our consciousness that is not entangled in what we are doing or thinking, but rather, acutely aware of what we are doing and thinking. Here.

 

 

Another way of looking at things. We are not our physical body, not our emotional  and mental aspects, and we are not our witness mind, but consciousness has to reside as and fully integrate into our physical and emotional and mental aspects as well as our witness mind for a while, “acutely aware of what we are doing and thinking.” 
 

Does anyone here experience bliss whilst still being acutely aware of what they are doing and thinking? Has anyone gone beyond this sort of permanent and ‘integrated’ bliss to consciousness within the ‘True Self’, which is really the thing that has to be birthed.  To dismiss the koshas and the concept of bringing consciousness to them is to dismiss the reality of consciousness as it really is. To not be able to intelligently discuss the koshas is not an achievement, it’s a gaping hole in self-understanding, as is not understanding the channels, or the chakras, or the dantians. Understanding these things is inevitable if the nature of consciousness has been examined, and discussing them intelligently is par for the course, not a distraction or an error. 
 

 

 

 

[exorcist_1699]

It is strange to think that spiritual problems can only be answered in a spiritual way , not in a physical way  ;  maybe it is true for people who follow the Buddhist style  of cultivation , but it definitely is not the case  if you  follow the Taoist way .  An emptied mind , if you do it correctly ,  definitely will give rise to physical changes in your body , say  diseases be cured or your aging be reversed even your having paid no attention to them . So, seeing this ,  you can estimate that likely you are on a right path of  your spiritual cultivation . 

 

It is important to know that if your mind consolidates  (not just empties )  , your jing will also  consolidate ;

(" 神凝則精凝" ) 

 

Note that having jing consolidated means it not leaking ,  can be accumulated , and no  longer be  deficient . Deficiency of  jing , therefore  deficiency and imbalance of qi ,   is the main reason of those diseases and aging.

Edited May 14, 2021 by exorcist_1699

[old3bob]

we often hear sentences with words like "the real me"...or my real self or Self.

 

which are  paradox's in the sense that the real me or my real Self is not a particular "me" at all per  a realization that there only one of us or one Self. 

 

also one might ask if there is no matrix for the Self how can the Self be?  To a matrix  mind of thought such a situation does not compute but to the Self the matrix,  or creation, preservation and destruction comes and goes like a play or dance on a stage.    The pure light, first light or first prana that makes all that possible is of enlivening bliss but in the end we must go inside the light to its source and that is the great unknown that can not be known except by Itself.  I think the first chapter of the T.T.C. alludes to this per:  "As the origin of heaven and earth, it is nameless.  As the mother (or matrix) of all things it is nameable." 

 

edit: (I would add or say that a unique soul knows itself  as a "particular me" whereas in the Upanishads the teaching on the "Self" does not equate to a particular soul among countless others)

Edited May 15, 2021 by old3bob

[manitou]

I think it's never easy to go through yourself to find the real thing.  But that's how the real thing is found.  More reading doesn't get it.  If we start from where we are now, it's possible to ride in to yourself with everyday things.  If traffic makes you impatient, take the time to realize why it makes you uncomfortable.  If you get into an argument with someone, as soon as possible examine yourself and see what button he's pushing, something from your young life that still sways your behavior.  And the behavior is usually more developed because it's taken hold for years - the trick is to find the button and turn the memory around.  However you can, turn it around.  Making apologies for bad behavior is just about the best thing you can do to lessen the ego.  Trying to go back and fix tendencies will pay off.

 

But the trick is in being honest with ourselves.  Welcome those times that you find yourself in an argument, because this will provide a big clue as to which dynamic needs tweaking.  Developing humility is something that happens naturally when you're able to own your mistakes, see them for what they are, see why you did it, etc.  Making amends.  It hurts, dammit.  But it works every time.

 

Once you've gotten to the place of self-realization by removal of all the contortions inside, the light shines.  Being in awareness of who you really are is its own reward.  You know that all time and space is yours.

[liminal_luke]

44 minutes ago, manitou said:

I think it's never easy to go through yourself to find the real thing.  But that's how the real thing is found. 

 

Ya gotta find yourself to lose yourself.  Or lose yourself to find yourself.  Either way.

[old3bob]

it is not easy to be a householder or a sannyasin (of most traditional orders), it is impossible to fulfill the dharma's of both and trying to do so will not work...granted one could be in some kind of transition but even that can only go on for so long.

 

Further, many householders here and in the world study the ways and words of sannyasins (or renunciates)  and imo that only works if the sannyasins also recognize and are qualified to help in the ways of householders (a life they have renounced) otherwise cross-purposes or conflicts will take place..

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by old3bob

[dwai]

6 hours ago, old3bob said:

it is not easy to be a householder or a sannyasin (of most traditional orders), it is impossible to fulfill the dharma's of both and trying to do so will not work...granted one could be in some kind of transition but even that can only go on for so long.

 

Further, many householders here and in the world study the ways and words of sannyasins (or renunciates)  and imo that only works if the sannyasins also recognize and are qualified to help in the ways of householders (a life they have renounced) otherwise cross-purposes or conflicts will take place..

 

 

Ramana maharshi used to say, “true sanyasa is simply in dropping of attachment and clinging”…

 

There are two kinds of sanyasa -

 

* vividhisha sanyasa

* vidvata sanyasa 

 

the first is that of the seeker - who might renounce their personal identity and dedicate themselves to seeking 

 

the second is that of the jnani, who, by being stable in their true nature,  naturally stops the clinging and aversion business.

[old3bob]

29 minutes ago, dwai said:

Ramana maharshi used to say, “true sanyasa is simply in dropping of attachment and clinging”…

 

There are two kinds of sanyasa -

 

* vividhisha sanyasa

* vidvata sanyasa 

 

the first is that of the seeker - who might renounce their personal identity and dedicate themselves to seeking 

 

the second is that of the jnani, who, by being stable in their true nature,  naturally stops the clinging and aversion business.

 

"Simply"? I'd say the chances of becoming a full jnani (as in manifesting Satguru) without following and completing the dharmas of sannyasin would be exceptionally rare to about zero...but what do i know. 

[dwai]

57 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

"Simply"? I'd say the chances of becoming a full jnani (as in manifesting Satguru) without following and completing the dharmas of sannyasin would be exceptionally rare to about zero...but what do i know. 

It is not as hard as it seems. People have a tendency to over-complicate things  

There is no such thing as "incomplete jnani" -- a jnani is one who knows, directly, without any doubt, their true nature. You think the Rishis from whose mouths we got the Vedas were Sanyasis? Almost all of them, were "householders". 

The Brihadāranyaka Upanishad was a conversation between Rishi Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitreyi (if memory serves me right, he had two wives -- Maitreyi and Katyayani Gargi. The traditional way was to fulfill all four stages of the varnashrama dharma with a few exceptions.

 

Though it must be said, the context of the Brihadarnyaka Upanishad is right before Yajnavalkya becomes a sanyasi. 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by dwai

[forestofclarity]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

I'd say the chances of becoming a full jnani (as in manifesting Satguru) without following and completing the dharmas of sannyasin would be exceptionally rare to about zero

 

From a Buddhist POV, the emphasis is on renunciation no matter what one's outer role is. One can be a wandering begger full of clinging, or one can be a householder without. Atmananda Krishna Menon would be a good example in the non-Buddhist world. 

 

I do find that aging, despite its flaws, is very nice in this area. Getting older and knowing the ephemeral nature of things directly has been very beneficial.

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

There is no such thing as "incomplete jnani" -- a jnani is one who knows, directly, without any doubt, their true nature.

 

Is a single glimpse of one's nature sufficient to undo all the binding vasanas and samskaras? 

 

There was a nice phrase I came across recently that keep reverberating in my mind: Like an ice cube which has been dropped into an ocean, it is melting and becoming the ocean itself. 

 

 

 

[old3bob]

there are an "x" number of Self-realized jnani's that have touched into the Self (in the context and title of yogi's, swami's or other titles) but as far as I know there are far, far fewer actual Satguru's* which is what i meant by a complete jnani.  So yes many relatively wise people (Rishis, etc.) were and are householders but a full renunciate as taught as the final stage in most forms or sects of Hinduism as far as I know is not. 

 

(* for example there may be 1,000 or 10,000 ? yogis for every Satguru)

Edited June 4, 2021 by old3bob

[dwai]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

there are an "x" number of Self-realized jnani's that have touched into the Self (in the context and title of yogi's, swami's or other titles) but as far as I know there are far, far fewer actual Satguru's* which is what i meant by a complete jnani.  So yes many relatively wise people (Rishis, etc.) were and are householders but a full renunciate as taught as the final stage in most forms or sects of Hinduism as far as I know is not. 

 

(* for example there may be 1,000 or 10,000 ? yogis for every Satguru)

Not everyone needs to be a sadguru. Such “individuals” appear once in many generations and provide inspiration for millions of jivas to become Self-realized. 
 

2 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

Is a single glimpse of one's nature sufficient to undo all the binding vasanas and samskaras? 
 

There’s that famous parable of the lion cub who was raised in a herd of sheep. Even after he was fully grown, he bleated, ate grass and cowered at the roar of other lions and hid with the other sheep. One day a lion attacked the herd and only this sheep-lion was left behind. The lion asked the sheep-lion, “why are you bleating and cowering?”

 

Sheep-lion replied, “but you are a lion and I’m a sheep. We are afraid of you as you eat us.”

 

Lion told him, “are you sure you are a sheep?”

 

sheep-lion said, “of course. I’ve been a sheep since I can remember.”

 

lion took him to a pond, and told him to look in the water. In the reflection the sheep-lion of course saw two fully grown lions. In an instant he realized he had always been a lion, and never a sheep. He roared at the top of his lungs and his delusion of having been a sheep evaporated  

2 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

There was a nice phrase I came across recently that keep reverberating in my mind: Like an ice cube which has been dropped into an ocean, it is melting and becoming the ocean itself. 

Yes.  Once the ice cube is in the ocean, does it have a choice but to melt? 

[manitou]

5 hours ago, dwai said:

Though it must be said, the context of the Brihadarnyaka Upanishad is right before Yajnavalkya becomes a sanyasi. 

 

 

That would be the 32nd degree.

 

[dwai]

11 hours ago, manitou said:

 

 

That would be the 32nd degree.

 

I’m not sure I understand  

[old3bob]

probably a Mason correlation?

[manitou]

It is a Mason correlation.  If you read Morals and Dogma (Pike), which enumerates all the qualities one needs for each degree (and the qualities one needs to lose), the 32nd degree is the last written chapter in the book.  That's as far as words can take you.  The 32nd degree is the last rung on the ladder before the I Am consciousness is realized.  That's the 33rd.

[old3bob]

Where could an ice-cube (or soul) be other than in the Ocean?  Yet could it not choose to remain as an apparent ice-cube for and entire cosmic cycle... (at the end of which all appearances end) 

[manitou]

19 hours ago, old3bob said:

Where could an ice-cube (or soul) be other than in the Ocean?  Yet could it not choose to remain as an apparent ice-cube for and entire cosmic cycle... (at the end of which all appearances end) 

 

 

Great metaphor.  An ice cube choosing to remain an ice cube.  Didn't Guan Yin do this?  

 

Quite a push-pull between Newtonian physics and the organizing principle of Mind.  If the ice cube remained in the cubic form by choice - assuming the ice cube has enough awareness to remain square - this sets up a physical/metaphysical conflict.  The ice cube would think it was all over when he loses his shape.  But nothing has changed!  Just the shape.

 

Ice Cubes 'R Us

[old3bob]

23 hours ago, manitou said:

 

 

Great metaphor.  An ice cube choosing to remain an ice cube.  Didn't Guan Yin do this?  

 

Quite a push-pull between Newtonian physics and the organizing principle of Mind.  If the ice cube remained in the cubic form by choice - assuming the ice cube has enough awareness to remain square - this sets up a physical/metaphysical conflict.  The ice cube would think it was all over when he loses his shape.  But nothing has changed!  Just the shape.

 

Ice Cubes 'R Us

 

The historic Buddha also mentioned to Ananda that he could choose to do something like this...(in well recognized Buddhist scripture) although such an ice cube would know that it is more than just a particular shape.

[dwai]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

The historic Buddha also mentioned to Ananda that he could choose to do something like this...(in well recognized Buddhist scripture) although such an ice cube would know that it is more than just a particular shape.

This is of relevance to this discussion —

 

 

[manitou]

The whole concept of form is amazing to me.  Matter is the same regardless of what shape it's in - and without some sort of awareness as to its shape, how do all those molecules stay together?  As The Intelligence is either all or it's nothing, it seems right to me that all matter has the capacity to keep its form because of an inherent intelligence that remembers.  For a while, at least, and subject to physical influences. 

 

What if the idea of a table was the very thing that attracted all the actors to make it?  What if there were a pretty little invisible table that tried real hard to manifest itself into existence, and finally did it because the idea attracted someone to make it?  I mean, you could really turn this whole thing inside out...

[doc benway]

20 minutes ago, manitou said:

The whole concept of form is amazing to me.  Matter is the same regardless of what shape it's in - and without some sort of awareness as to its shape, how do all those molecules stay together?  As The Intelligence is either all or it's nothing, it seems right to me that all matter has the capacity to keep its form because of an inherent intelligence that remembers.  For a while, at least, and subject to physical influences. 

 

Or perhaps we could say it’s all and nothing. No paradox exists other than in us.

 

 

20 minutes ago, manitou said:

What if the idea of a table was the very thing that attracted all the actors to make it?  What if there were a pretty little invisible table that tried real hard to manifest itself into existence, and finally did it because the idea attracted someone to make it?  I mean, you could really turn this whole thing inside out...

 

George got that!

 

 

 

[manitou]

Perfect, Steve!  Thanks!