Enlightenment, in depth

[goldisheavy]

Goldisheavy,

 

Is this lack of concern due to some realization? What causes the enlightened person to have no concerns? I see that's kind of answered here:

a) So an enlightened person has experienced all possible concerns...

They recognize the way being concerned works...

c) And have resolved all of their own concerns as a result.

 

So the reason why you're saying an enlightened person has no concerns is because they've done sort of psychoanalysis on themselves and have resolved their issues...is this definition of enlightenment based on any texts? Where do you get this info from?

 

Resolving concerns is a mystical process. It's not the same as finding a clear solution. The person develops intimate familiarity with concern formation and dissolution and develops mental/heart flexibility, a kind of deep psychic skillfulness, similar to how skiers navigate the steep slopes of the mountain. They don't necessarily know in advance, "Here I will turn left, there I will turn right." What they have is a very good sensitivity of the terrain, and their bodies have been trained to accommodate the rigor of skiing, and the combination of sensitivity and tolerance allows the skier to spontaneously move in such a way as to negotiate the slope in a skillful and seemingly effortless manner. Resolution of concerns is similar to this. The energy that causes concerns is still there "in the system" so to speak. However, it's no longer polarized or fractured mentally, and the sharp angles do not appear as much. Things become smoother. Further, the person develops greater sensitivity and can see a concern develop well before it is even recognized as a full blown "concern" by an ordinary person. So a lot of time an enlightened person doesn't even see the concern bloom all the way. At other times, the energy of concern is gracefully flowing in a manner that causes the least inner struggle.

 

So resolving a concern is not like reaching a conclusion or telling yourself a story about a solution, although these elements can be part of the resolution, the resolution itself is a mystical process that cannot be fully explained by solutions. It has more to do with sensitivity, insight, and intent. Resolution of concerns is an ongoing process. It's not like "OK, my problems are all resolved, period, end of story." It's an ongoing process where the problems abide in a resolved state and where the mind is behaving such that it's not a welcome ground for the arising of unresolved problems. It's an ongoing happening. It's continuous.

 

Is this all that enlightenment is?

 

So an enlightened person is said to be able to perform miracles because they recognize that if they believe it, it happens. Is this based on texts? Is there proof? If someone is enlightened and can't perform miracles, does that make them unenlightened?

 

If not...then this isn't a good part of the definition.

 

When you ask for proof, what do you accept? It's kind of like saying, I want payment, but will you accept payment in chicken eggs? Dollars? British pounds? Time share slots? Time with a prostitute? A delivery of donuts? Foot scratching? What kind of payment do you accept?

 

Proofs are like that. When someone demands proof, that person is unsatisfied and demands to be satisfied, and often the person takes on a hostile stance where they will make ever effort to remain unsatisfied (the so-called "skeptic"). When something has been proven to you, it means what? It means that you've accepted certain performances and appearances as part of the story for something and you relent. However, this "you relent" part is essential! If you make up your mind to never relent, you can seek proof indefinitely for anything! You can even demand proof that you are a human being, and no matter what proof is supplied to you, you don't have to become satisfied. You can press for more and more proof.

 

Since proving things is based on personal satisfaction and convention, what I am describing is beyond the realm of proof/disproof. I am describing the ultimate concerns. Those always lie beyond proof. The way it works is as follows. I speak. You listen. You make a decision as to whether or not what I say makes sense or is useful. But what I don't be doing is proving anything, and if you're smart, you won't even be asking for proof! If you ask for proof, you're asking to be tricked, because there is no reason you should ever stop questioning anything. When you decide to stop questioning something, it's a mystical process. It's not based on reason or rationality. We all intuitively understand that we have to have some "good faith" to live life. If we question everything, we cannot live comfortably. However, this is just intuition. It's not the truth. It's also how we get tricked and lied to and taken advantage of and it's also the same mechanism that keeps us ignorant. This kind of "good faith" non-questioning is at the basis of tradition and conservatism.

 

Just become sensitive to this. Understand this process as it impact your life experience. There is no solution and no approach is ultimately "better", but you'll know what works for you if you develop that sensitivity I am talking about.

 

An enlightened person has to have extraordinary mental flexibility and extraordinary level of tolerance. Anything less and it's not enlightenment. Someone with extraordinary mental flexibility and tolerance can perform what others call "miracles". They are not really miracles. It's like if you see a flexible person wring their hands out of hand cuffs, or wring themselves through the toilet seat, it may look like a miracle. But the reason is looks miraculous is because we understand that we don't have this flexibility and thus we could never do any such thing. But more than that, we think that it's impossible to EVER develop such flexibility and that neither us nor any members of our species can develop it (thus this level of flexibility is anathema to our perceived identity, and identity includes species identity into personal identity too), and when you see a member of your species defy your ingrained preconceptions, it appears miraculous. A miracle is nothing more than an experience that the mind judges as "this should not be possible." It's a judgment. That's all it is.

 

So, since miracles are not a big deal, yes, an enlightened person should be able to perform them. The more the better. That doesn't mean miracles are why people should become enlightened. But it's a side-effect. It's kind of like putting your body through a toilet seat is not why you should develop flexibility. You develop flexibility to have good health and good life. But as a side-effect or symptom of excellent flexibility you can put your body through the toilet seat. It's a good test of flexibility. It's also a good way to cut off a lot of bullshitters. It's also a way to keep yourself humble. So if you cannot do any such thing, you shouldn't be too arrogant. It's a way to know one's limitations in an honest way.

 

Another example is one of strength. A good test of strength is to do 100 push-ups or to lift 600 lbs barbell off the floor. But we don't develop strength specifically to do push-ups or to lift barbells! That would be a total waste. So a miracle is just like that. It's a performance that demonstrates some ability, but it's not the reason why you have that ability. If your ability has no way of being tested, do you really have an ability? It's just a way to be honest.

Edited April 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Experience will always kick Theory in the ass : )

 

But experience is always structured via beliefs, which are theory-like when you examine them closely. This is why theories work so well in practice in many areas of life.

 

Experience is belief, theory and practice, they are not two distinct things. It's the same process. Theory is experiential. Experience is theoretical. It's a frame of mind.

[Aetherous]

I've been busy with other things, so that's why I haven't stuck with this topic. Getting a decent definition was somewhat challenging...especially because it was decided that the definition should be based on what the majority of people think. Sadly, the majority seem to be talking about a different kind of enlightenment than I was hoping to discuss.

 

That's why it's so important to tell which type of enlightenment we're talking about exactly, before we continue on to discuss its nature...and we can only do that through defining the different kinds, and choosing one (and only one) to talk about.

 

So far, the only person who has been talking on the same page as me has been "Xabir". Maybe a couple of others, like Ian, too.

 

To continue on, I think I'll forget about the 'have everyone agree' thing, and just come up with a decent definition...one which would also rule out a lot of other types of the word, "enlightenment". So I'll do that later...

[三江源]

.

Edited April 9, 2015 by 三江源

[Ian]

But here is my question to David's point of view - if there is absolutely no experiencer then what is it that is able to be aware, conscious, alive, etc.? The unconditioned self is very much alive and is experiencing but it does not identify with the experiences, no?

 

Reckon that's about where the ineffability kicks in.

 

It seems that the all-that-is cannot be said to be experiencing, because anything it might be experiencing is also it. Just too seamless and non-separate. Like there is an experiencing in the middle without a thing on either end.

 

Aaargh. What do I know? Gonna shut up now.

[TTT]

I wonder who reads still reads the always, endless long posts from goldisheavy..

NO offense, just an observation

Edited April 28, 2009 by TTT

[Gerard]

there is a split moment when its all revealed and then its up to you to "do" or not "do" and "be" or "Fade". If you miss that moment you are back in the "wheel" again. Some never get ready for that moment it passes them like a blink of the eye. Others spend a lifetime preparing and then in that split moment can be fully liberated of ALL things...

 

Good answer, man. One of the best I read in this forum.

[Trunk]

I forgot who wrote this:

 

a condition

of complete

simplicity.

costing

not less than

everything.

[Trevcaru]

[三江源]

.

Edited April 9, 2015 by 三江源

[Aetherous]

Trevcaru,

 

Enlightenment comes when the experience is not. To the outsider, who is stuck, he says its an experience, cause this is all he sees. The outsider sees an event and a person experiencing it. And so he or she seeks the experience, the ego seeks the experience; it is trapped in its own strife.

 

If there's no person experiencing it, is it still not experienced? I like the quotes that xabir posted earlier on in the thread which went something like, "there is sound, but no listener."

 

This pure experience of sound (without the filter of a self) is still an experience. If it weren't an experience, there would be no sound.

 

At least this is my interpretation of the word "experience." What do you think?

[Aetherous]

So for a definition of the enlightenment being discussed in this topic...

 

Enlightenment is a direct non-conceptual realization that there is no self/doer/thinker/watcher/witness/observer. It is a realization that there is only object and no subject. It does not involve a loss of a self. It's not a state of being unaware of a self. It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with being able to manifest things into existence, or having magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises.

 

Any changes?

[Trunk]

So for a definition of the enlightenment being discussed in this topic...

 

Enlightenment is a direct non-conceptual realization that there is no self/doer/thinker/watcher/witness/observer. It is a realization that there is only object and no subject. It does not involve a loss of a self. It's not a state of being unaware of a self. It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with being able to manifest things into existence, or having magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises.

 

Any changes?

uh, ouch. I haven't kept up with this thread, so that might be an accurate thread-summary... but a lot of misses from my understanding. I'm not going to deconstruct it all... but a little.

 

It is a realization that there is only object and no subject.

The mundane subject/object split goes away. Much of what we ordinarily experience as 'self' does disappear. But there is also the opportunity to integrate subtle aspects of your body with Light... so (if you're lucky and you've done the right training) the vajra self (gradually) appears and the mundane self goes away.

 

It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with ... magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises.

All three of those are flat-out wrong.

 

 

[xabir2005]

So for a definition of the enlightenment being discussed in this topic...

 

Enlightenment is a direct non-conceptual realization that there is no self/doer/thinker/watcher/witness/observer. It is a realization that there is only object and no subject. It does not involve a loss of a self. It's not a state of being unaware of a self. It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with being able to manifest things into existence, or having magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises.

 

Any changes?

Strictly speaking non-dual experience isn't exactly 'objects without subject'. Not only is 'subject' empty, the 'object' is empty as well. Because what is sensed is not being observed from the viewpoint of a separate observer, there is no objectification of what is sensed or a splitting off of something from the rest. It is just a non-dual 'flowing' experience of various phenomenality (sights, sounds, sensations, etc) occuring in seamless wholeness without objectification nor is there a subject/observer. And because everything is dependently originated, everything is empty of any independent or inherent existence, but that is another topic.

 

As Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh puts it:

 

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

 

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

 

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

 

 

About those emotions:

 

Emotions lessen, pass through quickly, aren't sticky, lesser dualistic reactions, but not the same as emotions not arising, so I do agree with you on that point.

Edited April 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[Aetherous]

Trunk,

 

"It is a realization that there is only object and no subject."

 

The mundane subject/object split goes away. Much of what we ordinarily experience as 'self' does disappear. But there is also the opportunity to integrate subtle aspects of your body with Light... so (if you're lucky and you've done the right training) the vajra self (gradually) appears and the mundane self goes away.

 

We may be discussing a different type of enlightenment...your version being more Tibetan/Taoist, and the one I'm attempting to discuss, being pretty much strictly Buddhist. Like Theravadan Buddhist, maybe...but I'm not a scholar at ALL.

 

The two can overlap, but there are different goals, effects, and indicators for each. For instance, your version involves a vajra self appearing...the version I'm speaking of has nothing to do with that, and isn't about a mundane self going away, but rather, about seeing that a mundane self was never there.

 

Anyway, I may be wrong!

 

"It does not have anything to do with a lessened emotional response to the world, or a loss of negative emotions. It has nothing to do with ... magical powers. It is not the ability to accept everything fully. It is not about residing in the space from which everything arises."

 

All three of those are flat-out wrong.

 

You mean that enlightened people: have withdrawn emotionally from the world, have lost all negative emotions, are able to perform magical feats or have supernatural powers, accept everything fully, and reside in the space from which everything arises?

 

If so, then we're talking about different varieties of enlightenment. Which is why I needed to define 'enlightenment' before discussing the nature of it. If we're all using the same word for different things, it'll get really confusing when we start talking about whether it's permanent or not, whether it's final or an endless progression, whether it's an experience or experienced, or not, etc.

 

A "rock" can be the side of a pebble, or the size of a mountain. Without knowing which kind we're discussing, it could be very misleading to just say "rock". It's important to distinguish first.

 

 

As a side note, it's fine if people want to discuss other kinds of enlightenment in here. The topic is open in a public forum! The discussion of the nature of enlightenment doesn't have to be limited to one kind. I'm just focusing on this kind, since I think I have experience with it and am interested to learn more through discussion.

 

Xabir,

 

Strictly speaking non-dual experience isn't exactly 'objects without subject'. Not only is 'subject' empty, the 'object' is empty as well. Because what is sensed is not being observed from the viewpoint of a separate observer, there is no objectification of what is sensed or a splitting off of something from the rest. It is just a non-dual 'flowing' experience of various phenomenality (sights, sounds, sensations, etc) occuring in seamless wholeness without objectification nor is there a subject/observer. And because everything is dependently originated, everything is empty of any independent or inherent existence, but that is another topic.

 

Nice. Maybe the 'objects without subject' part should just be left out. It makes sense to me in the way that you describe "just a non-dual 'flowing' experience of various phenomenality occurring in seamless wholeness without objectification." But I can see that it could confuse someone when it's said that there's only object, and it isn't exactly correct.

 

As Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh puts it:

 

"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."

 

"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."

 

"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

 

Nice.

 

About those emotions:

 

Emotions lessen, pass through quickly, aren't sticky, lesser dualistic reactions, but not the same as emotions not arising, so I do agree with you on that point.

 

Yep, something definitely changes in the response to emotions arising, when someone's not caught up in delusion, but emotions ceasing completely, or only positive ones being there, is wrong.

[goldisheavy]

Santi,

 

and if, in those moments, you just witness, what then. How can one help oneself to be fully liberated in that moment..

 

To know the answer to that, you have to delve deeply into the experience and the deepest perceptible meaning of the unliberation or lack of liberation. When you experience lack of liberation, what is it exactly? Familiarize yourself with it at all levels. Feel it. Know it. Etc. Then you will know for yourself what the absence of that will be like.

 

Maybe also it isnt just black and white: that the moment may fade and one is either back to square one, or that one is fully liberated of ALL things.. but that the vision, the 'experience' is something that shines a light and perspective on everything that comes after it. So it is slowly and gently transformative.

 

Exactly. You have better insight than the person you are learning from. The world is often upside down like that. People who should be teachers act as students and people who should be students act as teacher. However, in a way you deserve what you get. Why? Because you don't recognize your own wisdom yet and seek outside of yourself, so you deserve to be a student of any teacher you select for yourself, since you haven't internalized authority and responsibility yet.

 

This pure experience of sound (without the filter of a self) is still an experience. If it weren't an experience, there would be no sound.

 

All experience is pure. There is no such thing as a dirty experience. If you listen carefully to xabir, you will understand that ALL is empty, and not just subject. That's the part you don't seem to understand yet. Your mind is focusing emptiness in a preferential and biased manner only on the subject, while you conceive of the object as truly thus. In other words, you objectify experience and you hold this objectified experience to be the essential and substantial truth, and you hold subject to be a distortion. From a Buddhist perspective that's very wrong. A correct view is to hold both subjective and objective experiences to be empty, without preference toward objectivity or subjectivity. So one doesn't hold up subjectivity as something false or as an interference, and one doesn't hold up objectivity as something definitely true and substantial. And vice versa as well. No bias. All is equally empty. All experience is pure. There is no dirty experience.

Edited April 29, 2009 by goldisheavy

[trailmaker]

Santi,

 

and if, in those moments, you just witness, what then. How can one help oneself to be fully liberated in that moment..

 

Maybe also it isnt just black and white: that the moment may fade and one is either back to square one, or that one is fully liberated of ALL things.. but that the vision, the 'experience' is something that shines a light and perspective on everything that comes after it. So it is slowly and gently transformative.

 

 

cat - really got to like that take.

[Aetherous]

Gold,

 

"This pure experience of sound (without the filter of a self) is still an experience. If it weren't an experience, there would be no sound."

 

All experience is pure. There is no such thing as a dirty experience.

 

I agree. I could have just said "the experience of sound". Doesn't matter.

 

Like it says in the definition, "there is no loss of self"...so an enlightened person experiencing sound would be the same as an unenlightened person experiencing sound. Sound is sound.

 

My point was that even an enlightened person experiences. It was in response to this:

 

Enlightenment comes when the experience is not. To the outsider, who is stuck, he says its an experience, cause this is all he sees. The outsider sees an event and a person experiencing it.

 

I think where we might be getting hung up, is that people are thinking "enlightenment is not an experience". That's true...it's not like having sex for instance. That's an experience, because you're dealing with phenomenon. So some thing is not necessarily experienced as enlightenment, but things are still experienced with/after enlightenment.

 

I don't care to get into a debate about how we shouldn't say things are 'experienced' when there's no witness to experience them. It's obvious that things are always experienced regardless. So that kind of discussion is just playing around with semantics.

 

If you listen carefully to xabir, you will understand that ALL is empty, and not just subject. That's the part you don't seem to understand yet. Your mind is focusing emptiness in a preferential and biased manner only on the subject, while you conceive of the object as truly thus. In other words, you objectify experience and you hold this objectified experience to be the essential and substantial truth, and you hold subject to be a distortion. From a Buddhist perspective that's very wrong. A correct view is to hold both subjective and objective experiences to be empty, without preference toward objectivity or subjectivity. So one doesn't hold up subjectivity as something false or as an interference, and one doesn't hold up objectivity as something definitely true and substantial. And vice versa as well. No bias. All is equally empty.

 

I don't think so. I agree with Xabir's thoughts here:

 

It is just a non-dual 'flowing' experience of various phenomenality (sights, sounds, sensations, etc) occuring in seamless wholeness without objectification nor is there a subject/observer.

 

But to me, in layman's terms, I still refer to that as being "no subject, only object". Or I guess to put it in a better way, "only phenomenon".

[xabir2005]

But to me, in layman's terms, I still refer to that as being "no subject, only object". Or I guess to put it in a better way, "only phenomenon".

Gold has a point also and so do you.

 

What I would like to say is that emptiness does not deny the crystal clarity of manifestation -- in seeing, hearing, smelling, etc... the 'luminosity' (vivid awareness) and 'emptiness' must be seen as inseparable union. Both are equally important.

 

It's only the clinging to objectification of something into an entity, or clinging to the subject that is a problem.

 

Like Thich Nhat Hanh said, you can't speak of 'wind' apart from its 'blowing'. There is no graspable thing called 'wind', it is a dynamic movement, totally ungraspable, yet vivid and clearly present.

 

There is no perceiver, only perception. Or better yet: only perceiving, with no perceiver and no'thing' perceived. Similarly, phenomena is better described as phenomena-ing, though I don't think this word exists.

[goldisheavy]

Gold,

My point was that even an enlightened person experiences.

 

In that case I have to agree with you completely.

Edited April 29, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Aetherous]

Xabir,

 

There is no perceiver, only perception. Or better yet: only perceiving, with no perceiver and no'thing' perceived.

 

This is a little confusing for me. Because wind blowing may be perceived, and differentiated from non-wind blowing. It's hard to understand that no'thing' is experienced. Clearly (to me at least), things are perceived.

 

Apparently I need more time on the cushion.

 

Similarly, phenomena is better described as phenomena-ing, though I don't think this word exists.

 

It should.

 

Personally I really like the "ing" added to the end of things. It was how my experience of enlightenment was. Like my breath was breath-ing. A sound in the room was sound-ing. Thoughts were thought-ing.

 

Ing-ness. Awesome-ing...

 

We've just covered whether enlightenment's an experience or not...and the verdict: enlightenment is not phenomenon, and can't be experienced as such, but there is experience with/after enlightenment, so the condition of enlightenment is experienced. Any qualms?

 

So yeah, now that I brought my experience up...it's probably a good time to discuss whether this kind of enlightenment is permanent, or not. I tend to think it can be lost, due to personal experience and also a quote from Daniel Ingram (which I'll find later)...but you, Xabir, say that it's permanent, right? This should make for good discussion. I'm sure I'll learn something at least...

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

This is a little confusing for me. Because wind blowing may be perceived, and differentiated from non-wind blowing. It's hard to understand that no'thing' is experienced. Clearly (to me at least), things are perceived.

 

Apparently I need more time on the cushion.

It should.

 

Personally I really like the "ing" added to the end of things. It was how my experience of enlightenment was. Like my breath was breath-ing. A sound in the room was sound-ing. Thoughts were thought-ing.

 

Ing-ness. Awesome-ing...

 

We've just covered whether enlightenment's an experience or not...and the verdict: enlightenment is not phenomenon, and can't be experienced as such, but there is experience with/after enlightenment, so the condition of enlightenment is experienced. Any qualms?

 

So yeah, now that I brought my experience up...it's probably a good time to discuss whether this kind of enlightenment is permanent, or not. I tend to think it can be lost, due to personal experience and also a quote from Daniel Ingram (which I'll find later)...but you, Xabir, say that it's permanent, right? This should make for good discussion. I'm sure I'll learn something at least...

Not a 'thing' just means not something graspable, permanent, solid, but rather is fluxing, everchanging, and arising dependent upon various conditions thus having no inherent, independent existence.

 

It's definitely possible to have intense non-dual experiences that come and go. But it's not realisation. Realisation is permanent, i.e. seeing Anatta as having always been so, as a Dharma seal, nature of reality, and not as a stage.

 

As I just told forestofsoul:

Good points and I have to admit you're mostly right. And yeah I'm 19. I'm not saying I'm any more experienced than you... I said 'I'm practicing' but not 'I'm enlightened'. I am still trying to stabilize the glimpses or recognition of I AM. I think what you are practising is a sort of witnessing by resting on awareness itself. Certainly, the Thai Forest Tradition (where Ajahn Chah is in) has more emphasis on this method than say, the Mahasi Sayadaw or other insight traditions.

I also have had some very intense non-dual experiences where experiencer and experienced totally merges, but they are passing states with entry and exit. Not so much of insight or realisation. Mostly I still recognise awareness as the pure sense of being, witness, background space.

 

p.s. what are you teaching/training?

Edited April 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[Trevcaru]

experience

1377, from O.Fr. experience, from L. experientia "knowledge gained by repeated trials,"

 

 

n.

The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind

 

 

Im sorry if i wasnt very clear. What i meant was that the observer may say, he is having an experience. Or i may strive for an experience. and i may have an experience... but when there is no one there to experience, when there is no gap between ones self and the action, then there is no experience. Afterwards it is an experience when i talk about it, or when i strive for it... maybe i feel it was so wonderful, so i try and obtain that experience again. But its not simply semantics.... enlightenment cant be obtained, it cant be experienced, in fact its quite the opposite of those. I think maybe the confusion is a matter of time. I cant become enlightened, its quite impossible. Enlightenment is something that happens when there is no one to experience it. The person striving for the experience is like the mouse in the running wheel. We run and run, but we dont see that we are running, its like a feedback loop, it feeds itself. the mind is quite tricky though and it simulates experience and hides and says it didnt do it, cause it lacks wholeness. Wholeness isnt striven for, it comes uninvited, when the mind sees that it is running running is gone. When i am sensitive enough to feel that my hand is burning on the stove, it is removed; no choice, no striving, no belief. The outsider may say, he experienced pain, but this is an external view. This is outside of what was going on. Subtle? maybe. Semantics? no, there is something here...

[Trevcaru]

 

 

3) What else it could be besides an experience. Personally, it seem unfathomable for something to not be an experience, or not be experienced.

 

i could say, "it is unfathomable!" but i would be a liar... but i can lie to you a little... sorry man, theres no free rides.... if its a paradoxical riddle to you, its a matter of whether you are interested. its not your choice for it to be a paradoxical riddle or not cause it is what it is. NO FREE RIDES THIS TIME.

WHY ARE YOU FATHOMING? what makes you special? you think your special? fuck it...

IT IS UNFATHOMABLE!there... i said it, im going to hell. but really, why are you fathoming? i mean it... much emphasis on the why, and dont ask me or your neighbor, or Shalafukinbaba Guru-dinglefuk. wait... bigger question, are you serious or are you just playing intellectual tea time deep thought party? or no, wait, your just going to believe me or some shit that its unfathomable, right? Wait... you hit the nail on the head. But did you? does it seem... or the bigger question that im not going to ask.... look i cant push you through the door, no one can, but i can waste my time here paving the pathway up to it and decorating it with flowers and hire clowns to dance around it..... what the fuck am i doing? oh, right, we are all one. And i suppose the bodhisattvas can all hang themselves when they are done. They are liars too.

[Aetherous]

Trevcaru,

 

i could say, "it is unfathomable!" but i would be a liar... but i can lie to you a little... sorry man, theres no free rides.... if its a paradoxical riddle to you, its a matter of whether you are interested. its not your choice for it to be a paradoxical riddle or not cause it is what it is. NO FREE RIDES THIS TIME.

WHY ARE YOU FATHOMING? what makes you special? you think your special? fuck it...

IT IS UNFATHOMABLE!there... i said it, im going to hell. but really, why are you fathoming? i mean it... much emphasis on the why, and dont ask me or your neighbor, or Shalafukinbaba Guru-dinglefuk. wait... bigger question, are you serious or are you just playing intellectual tea time deep thought party? or no, wait, your just going to believe me or some shit that its unfathomable, right? Wait... you hit the nail on the head. But did you? does it seem... or the bigger question that im not going to ask.... look i cant push you through the door, no one can, but i can waste my time here paving the pathway up to it and decorating it with flowers and hire clowns to dance around it..... what the fuck am i doing? oh, right, we are all one. And i suppose the bodhisattvas can all hang themselves when they are done. They are liars too.

 

Truly thought provoking response!

 

Listen, if you "yell" at me again, I just won't respond to you, "Trevcaru". It's a waste of my time to have to read your ranting and raving, all to get to the point that you think you're qualified enough to be able to try and 'yell me into realization', something which you haven't actually attained (which is apparent by everything you post).

 

If you didn't catch it - I said you're not qualified enough to write like you're writing here.

 

So basically what you said was, "Blah blah blah blah blah. BLAH!" Thank you for giving me that opportunity to learn so much about you!

 

I will continue having this "intellectual tea time deep thought party" because it's essential for myself and everyone else to know exactly what our path is, so that when we go sit on the cushion, we clearly know what we're doing.

 

If you want to continue here, and post something of value, I will welcome that! If you're incapable of doing so, then I will just not respond.

 

Im sorry if i wasnt very clear. What i meant was that the observer may say, he is having an experience. Or i may strive for an experience. and i may have an experience... but when there is no one there to experience, when there is no gap between ones self and the action, then there is no experience.

 

I understood that...and I disagree. There is obviously experience after realization. It really is semantics when you start saying "well there's no one there to experience it" blah blah blah. Only dead people have no experience.

 

There's nothing more to discuss on this issue because we'll just be going back and forth. You think the word 'experience' is inappropriate, and I don't care because enlightened people obviously still experience the world in some way...end of discussion.

 

But its not simply semantics.... enlightenment cant be obtained, it cant be experienced, in fact its quite the opposite of those. I think maybe the confusion is a matter of time. I cant become enlightened, its quite impossible. Enlightenment is something that happens when there is no one to experience it. The person striving for the experience is like the mouse in the running wheel. We run and run, but we dont see that we are running, its like a feedback loop, it feeds itself.

 

If I were a mouse running on a wheel, I would know what I was running on.

 

Even if I don't experience something called enlightenment directly, I can know the definition and come to the conclusion that enlightenment is what's happening, based on how well my experience correlates with the definition.

 

Pretty basic stuff.