A Guide to Meditation

[bkadoctaj]

I guess I understand that the Buddhists call it "mantra", but from a leaning-Taoist perspective, it just seems like a "name". What is the point of "right labels"?

And I mean this seriously... this thread has captivated my interest most definitely.

Great words, Androgenicx and MelT.

[MelT]

The following is useful guidance to help test a student's level of 'attainment', showing the different ways that realisation can manifest. Note that the two realisations are roughly equivalent to Samprajnata, then Nirvikalpa Samadhi. This is written at the level of Mahamudra, hence it talks about merit, purity and faults in a relative way, though its definitions are still applicable later.

"...The Questions of the Contemplative Nyimo Gomchen and the Responses of Sakya Pandita
I reverently bow at the feet of the Holy Guru! The glorious Sakya Pandita wrote the following lines to Nyimo Gomchen, a contemplative filled with faith and spiritual aspiration, applying himself earnestly to his practice: In response to your questions:

In realizing the nature of the mind (Realisation), is there a complete grasp of the meaning of the Three Collections of Teachings and the Four Classes of Tantras?

There are two realizations: Realizing the emptiness of the mind, and realizing the union of apparent reality and the emptiness of mind. In realizing the emptiness of the mind, one does not fully grasp the meaning of the Three Collections of Teachings and the Four Classes of Tantras. With such realization one may fully comprehend the Cessation of a Listener (Shravaka), but since that cessation falls to the extreme of emptiness alone, one would not grasp the meaning of the Mahayana teachings. This is stated in all the Mahayana Sutras and Tantras. In realization of the union [of apparent reality and emptiness], there is no blemish of even the most subtle faults. It therefore holds the basis of morality, and the Collection of Vinaya is complete. Since the Heroic Samadhi and all other states of concentration arise [from such realization], the collection of Sutras is complete. Since it cognizes all knowable things, from form to the Omniscient Mind, the collection of Abhidharma is complete. And due to its comprehension of the special outer and inner dependently-related events, the Four Classes of Tantra are complete.

Are the Three Jewels complete in one's own mind? In the mere emptiness of the mind and the understanding of that emptiness, the Three Jewels are not complete. In the union of the cognition and emptiness of the mind, the seeds of the Three Jewels are complete. If one properly realizes the meaning of that union, the Three Jewels are manifestly complete.

Is a person who realizes the emptiness of the mind a Buddha?

One who has realized emptiness alone is not a Buddha. If one comprehends all knowable things, one is fully enlightened. Furthermore, there are two modes of comprehension, the comprehension that there is no realization of an ultimately (i.e. inherently) existent phenomenon; and the comprehension of all distinct, conventionally existent phenomena.

If one does not ascertain the mind, even though one accumulates merit, doesn't that [just] lead to temporary happiness?

If one does not realize the mode of existence of the mind - the meaning of emptiness - one cannot attain the joy of Liberation by means of one's collection of merit. Although that may act as a cause for the joys up to the Peak of Cyclic Existence, the collection of merit is not perfected, And, on the other hand, if one does not have knowledge of knowable objects but only realization of the emptiness of the mind, how can one be a Buddha? If that were possible, there would be Buddhas in the Nirvana of Listeners, for which there is realization of emptiness alone, and there would also be Buddhas in empty space. But how could there be Buddhas there? Thus the assertion of all the Sutras and Tantras is that Buddhahood occurs through knowledge of all knowable objects and through realization that there is no inherent nature to be realized, i.e. knowing that of which there is nothing to be known.

At what point does one have the certainty of attaining Enlightenment?

Some people realize the emptiness of the mind alone, but have not perfected the qualities of the Method aspect of the training. Some have such qualities, but do not realize the emptiness of the mind. Some have both, but they are not able to guide their practice of the Method with their knowledge. Some have the other qualities, but since they lack the lineage of blessing, they are unable to generate the Clear Appearance. Thus, I fear that Buddhahood is far from them. Since I have a number of these attributes, I hope to attain Enlightenment, but not by the swift means.

This concludes my responses to the questions of the contemplative Nyimo Gomchen.

(This unedited translation was prepared under the guidance of Lama Tashi Namgyal by B. Alan Wallace (Gelong Jhampa Kelsang) at ©Sakya Thubten Kunga Choling in Victoria, B.C., August 1984).

[L Rag]

Thanks alot for that man, a bit too much to take in right now haha but I'll definitely read up on it. +rep man

[MelT]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

I guess I understand that the Buddhists call it "mantra", but from a leaning-Taoist perspective, it just seems like a "name". What is the point of "right labels"?

Very true Labels are mere conceptualisations, the root idea of Buddhism.

Mantras play a part in some forms of Buddhism (and Hinduism), but not all. Everything is a relative stance until you 'get it'.

MelT

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by MelT

Very true Labels are mere conceptualisations, the root idea of Buddhism.

Mantras play a part in some forms of Buddhism (and Hinduism), but not all. Everything is a relative stance until you 'get it'.

MelT

Wow, I'm fundamentally in amazement with how few words can say so much. Such is the Way of things/dharmas, I suppose.

[Androgenicx]

To me, the goal is to end the mind - to end all internal chatter permanently. Seeing things for their true emptiness, seeing ones own consciousness as innately empty, and the various other practices and everything are just pointers towards the space of permanent no mind, are just mild enactments of certain qualities that are experienced in enlightenment.

All these concepts, everything, ceases upon final dropping of the thinking mind. No practice is required, there is no 'right seeing'. Right seeing automatically happens always, for 'wrong seeing', that is, at some level, all seeing that is seen through the lens of the mind, ceases to occur.

I will use all wisdom, all practices, all meditations and non-meditations, buddhist practices, zen, dzogchen, hindu meditations, personal discoveries - everything, without following any one thing for all these are invented by humans and only point and guide towards the primordial state - but are not it in themselves, to fully at some point realize profoundly and finally the worthlessness of the mind, and the mind that is typing this and the mind that says that it is itself useless but doesn't KNOW it FULLY, WILL know it FULLY, and at this time will dissolve itself.

Awesome posts, thanks for sharing.

I have "A Scriptural Transmission" in the mail

[MelT]

You will love 'scriptural transmission' and I think that it will change your approach to what you do and make it far simpler.

Basically, if (and you may not) you believe that all is unity/non-duality, then there are no better or worse states of mind. There's no need to purify the senses and sit permanently trying to find non-conceptuality to escape the human mind, as it too is non-dual, and just as much a part of greater reality as everything else is. Every thought and perception is ultimate nature, there is no need to seek it elsewhere other than in this very moment and in whatever state of mind you find yourself in now. Nothing is separate from it, nothing is different. As this is the case, it doesn't matter if you sing or dance or meditate, all is the natural condition.

As you learn to rest in this, and simply remain in a natural state without doing, states of non-conceptuality, bliss, lucidity and the secret samadhi appear by themselves, without effort. You asked if I was permanently in a state of recognition, when there is nothing other than that state, and I neither enter it nor leave it.

This is a brief extract from the Kunyed Gyalpo, written in the 'voice' of ultimate reality.

The Kunyed Gyalpo (ch 45)

Listen great being! My view is not something on which to meditate, because it concerns me, the source, and one cannot meditate on me. I that am the source, cannot become an object of meditation. By nature I abide in all, without ever being altered.

The view of total perfection is not to be meditated on because the qualities of my mind are the extraordinary qualities of pure and total consciousness. Thus self-sacrifice is not necessary in seeking to realise them; being beyond causes and conditions.

Whoever meditates on me will not meet me precisely on account of that meditation. As I am the manifestation of the fundamental nature, in my state, suffering does not arise (ie, it is empty), and consequently there is no need to eliminate it. As I am self-arising, unborn and indestructable, there is no need to block the senses tied to the interdependence of ignorance (ie, blocking or altering perceptions of samsaric reality).

Being fundamentally pure by nature, the fundamental condition does not need to be purified. Being pure from the beginning, it does not need to be cleansed. Being ever self-perfected, there is no need of effort to attain it. Even seeking everywhere, nothing impure can be found: all is the essential condition that manifests in the form that is always good.

From the beginning, the phenomena that appear as the objects of the senses, too, are this very nature and nothing else. Whoever tries to meditate and strives to realise this condition is like a blind man vainly pursuing the sky..."


How is your bliss BTW? If you're practising Dzogchen it should be at a stage where it comes and goes quite frequently during the day whether you meditate or not. I would be very happy to show you how to turn its aspect of non-conceptuality into a useful access point?

MelT

[Androgenicx]

Yeah I have a feeling that I will love the book. Quite a penny it costs - I think its out of print, all I could find were a few used copies that amazon linked me to (not even sold directly by amazon), for 130$.

As for the latter question about bliss - I don't believe that full dzogchen is in my life yet. What is there is an almost complete lack of negative emotion and "agitation" of the mind, calmness, sureness of step, alot more presence at all times next to no thought about the past, the immediate yesterday, very little imagination in attempt to control the future - the illusion of control is slowing dying. There is alot of peace, moments of bliss - during meditation the meditation just takes me over theres nothing to "do" anymore - i just sit and it washes over me - flows through me - "glimpses" in meditation are becoming much more frequent - experiences of physical esctacy, experiences where the surrender and "doing nothing" becomes so complete that something "opens up" inside of me and there is the greatest ease of existing, without any concept of unease.

I realized only yesterday how profoundly tranquil and trusting my state has been. I made the choice to go back to india and leave possessions relationships and such and live ashram life, perhaps even wander india on foot with nothing more than a begging bowl. After I made this choice there has been little thought about it, little worry, little positive thought also. No thought, just preparation. Normally there would be periods where i wonder to myself "WTF am i doing???", where fear and unease would creep in, where i would fantasize positively about or worry negatively about what might happen. Even in such a "big" decision, there is complete ease and trust and relaxation and being present to where I am right now.

As regards to waking "practice", I fall into states sometimes where nothing has any essential nature for labels are gone - i feel the same in the gym as i do outside in nature - spaceousness, no identification with the manifestations around me. When I fall into this state it usually stays the rest of the day without any effort or "practice" - when i sleep though I dream, thought exists, and I wake up out of this state - not at any unease or worry or agitation, but not in this subtle state anymore.

Life is like a dream - but not in the usual sense where life IS like a dream because we go unconsciously through it and it doesn't..seem..real..but conscious and very real, but dreamlike in its ease.

Dzogchen - from what ive read from you, I have not touched upon yet - perhaps some parts of it occasionally, but i don't think I "have" it. Youve opened my eyes to something possibly new and further, and im waiting eagerly on that book.

[MelT]

Excellent, I sincerely hope it helps in some way.

I did something myself very similar regarding India, and stopped work for seven years to practice alone, gave up my possessions, etc. , and still many years on I own just a guitar, some books and a handful of clothes that you would probably think belonged to a hobo I still don't mix with people wherever possible, simply because they and I tend to share different goals and needs.

Going away to travel is something that I think is very worthwhile. I hope you do it, though the commercial aspect of India now, as you know, is turning spirituality into commercialism, and even in Tibet it's strange to see monks with IPods and phones and very modern lives. But for me it came with its own problems, as does Kensho and Satori. I don't want to make this sound as though I am anything or anyone, I just really want to say it as something that you and others seeking the same things might consider, and TBH I'm not even certain as I'm writing how I'm going to say this. I'm sure this leaves me wide open to criticism, and I do understand that, but it has to be said.

On the one hand, everything changes. Ego death is a poor description of what happens in terms of 'benefits and losses'. Who I am now is not the person I was before it all began, and I can hardly understand the person I used to be or how he thought. Deep Kensho/Satori brings deep compassion, bliss and contentment, and a continuing sense of connection. All wonderful and yummy, but the contentment is extremely deep, to the extent that you literally feel no different sitting in front of a TV, or on a rock in the middle of nowhere for five hours - desire and intent to be or do anything is entirely gone. You can do things perfectly well if you want to, but you feel no need. Whereas that might sound fine, it's not quite as fine for those around you. Imagine you live with someone and every time you ask them if they want tea or coffee, a walk to the shops or to dance naked in the garden, the answer is always, 'I don't mind'. After a few months it gets very wearing for them. After a few years it creates an actual rift, because they feel that you've lost something rather than gained it.

Work suffers, because although you still have the power to create and imagine, the desire and need to do so is all but gone. Getting jobs in the real world becomes hard for you, and harder for the people you have to work with, because your reactions to them and your attempts at conversation seem strange and 'not normal'. If you can afford to live outside society for the rest of your life, then that's great, but eventually, most people have to come back and try to re-integrate so that they can continue to survive.

'Before enlightenment, wash pots, boil rice. After enlightenment, wash pots, boil rice', as they say. The return is far harder than the apparent escape, and it needs whoever does it to become an actor in almost every social situation - unable to relate to the world, but trying desperately to look and sound normal.

Your relationships suffer too, because unless you're very lucky, your family and friends will not get where you're now coming from, and will really not care to listen as you try to explain what has happened. And understandably so. For most people 'enlightenment' is something strange and only reserved for Buddhas and gods, and the last thing they want to hear is that someone they've been married to for 20 years has now somehow disappeared and someone else has taken their place - to them it sounds almost like insanity.

It took me over 8 years of fighting and acting to get to a point where I could work again, albeit from home, and posting here on GC a couple of years ago was only a result of years of trying to re-build a personna. The protection of anonymity here is useful, and a handy place to reclaim lost social skills Much as I like who 'I' am now, being that person does not fit well with today's western society (and not so much any more in the East either nowadays). Hardly anyone knows about realisation, hardly anyone cares, why should they?

So, the point of this ramble is just to set people thinking about what they might do if they really do reach any kind of attainment? Suppose you became realised this second, what would your next steps be? Would you rush out and teach, get disciples, write and spread the word, or live in an Ashram for the rest of your life in peace and tranquility?

All of these choices present problems. How are you going to prove you're realised to your 'followers' and sound any less trite than the hundreds of others who falsely claim it? Have you got the money or opportunity to live in seclusion for the rest of your life? Would it be a waste of your precious life to do this? And, as I said above, you would feel exactly the same in an ashram as on a rock in a park, so staying permanently in one afterwards is pointless unless you're just looking for a free ride.

It doesn't make anyone special or raise their heads above the parapet of normal life to be realised. To be seen as 'special' and get 'followers' requires much self-promotion, books, tours and a manager - and TBH, the last thing that you want after such realisation is anything remotely like that, it becomes so meaningless that anyone who is truly realised would even entertain it, they have no desire or intent to live like that.

There are tens of enlightened and fully enightenend people in the world today, and at least two on GC have certainly reached Kensho themselves. A handful more here have got such a fine grasp on ultimate reality that if they were to take just one more simple step, Kensho would not be too far away. But none of it has any meaning at all for the world at large, just for we who experience it.

An open question to all seekers: Which rock will you choose to sit on? Will it be the same rock as before you began?

MelT

[Androgenicx]

Its funny how the tradition is different between many other enlightenment thoughts, especially in Hinduism, and in Zen. Indeed, there is no phenomenal god-like occuring upon and after enlightenment as most expect - "Before enlightenment boil water cook rice, after enlightenment boil water cook rice" is certainly more accurate - but given the nature of the change what usually occurs if utter realization is achieved is the spontaneous urge to help and guide others to this awakening occurs - and this is, in different ways - small and large - might be just one zen master living quietly with a handful of pupils or something like maharshi, the buddha, or the living nithyananda where the calling really reaches out to thousands of people. There is nothing left at all to care about in the slightest, not the self not the body not ones future not anything. In such a space all that is left is compassion and bliss - and the transmission of this bliss to everyone that is encountered. Enlightened beings of the past have led and taught out of spontaneous unfoldment, not after sitting and thinking about what to do next - this would invalidate their "enlightenment" itself. Nothing matters, these questions don't even arise.

There are a few indications of Enlightenment that only the person can know - and I believe and agree with it - 1) There is no more question "am I enlightened" or not, the question cannot arise
2) and this is important, ALL inner chatter permanently ceases. The brain permanently resides in a meditative theta state. All living thereon forth occurs as spontaneous enactment of calling and vision - thought does not occur any more. There is no internal chattering at all - the mind has ceased completely.
3) not only does the ego death occur, the physical consciousness and its boundaries change. The distinction of "me" and "that" or "me" and "you" that separates objects and people from yourself dies. Not intellectually, not 3/4th the way, completely and permanently.

If these have not occurred, I believe it is safe to say that one is not fully enlightened yet, and that any questions or apprehensions regarding the state are unimportant then.

Besides, if one was fully enlightened, one would not ask "is it a trade off, is it something you are ready for".

If one is enlightened, those that may be guided by your hand will believe in you 100%, there is no convincing needed. If one feels the need to convince, enlightenment has not occured, there is still mild inner chatter and identity.

How do I plan on separating the frauds? You cant, not truly, you never can, thats just how it is. Ive been in the presence of one, ive seen him enough to know intuitively that he has attained, and his manner of talking, his body language forever embodies it without slip.

Besides, the goal is not to find an enlightenened being, but to become enlightened myself. All with even some progress can aid in this path. I have an inner vision of after awhile at the ashram wandering the country on foot as a begging monk. The search is within and ultimately for myself, the others are for guidance - if the first being to attain could come upon it himself, I am certain I can too.

"If you became enlightened this second, what would your next step be" - this is imagination into the future, not grounding in the present - this is a product of inner chatter and is as such empty and irrelevant. After enlightenment, enlightenment will spontaneously do what is to be done. Sitting around and planning before it is both futile - as life never can be controlled; all thought about the future is the illusion of control. There is no "choosing" after enlightenment, for there are no options from the arise of inner chatter to choose from. Life becomes just one spontaneous unfoldment after the other.

To worry or have reservations about anything related to enlightenment is inner chatter and is irrelevant. Realize that even the deepest of Kensho is still the mind experiencing the kensho, the mind coming inches away from the truth. Enlightenment IS the the truth, not the mind experiencing the truth, not the experience of the truth. It is full realization and embodiment of the truth - there is noone left to "experience" it. While kensho might seem like it can't go much further and is already so blissful, it is considered not to be even 0.1% of the full experience when it occurs.
It is like the difference between drinking from the ocean of god-nectar, and jumping in it and losing onesself totally in it. Kensho, while closest to enlightenment, is still not close to enlightenment at all.

Question: "Which rock will you choose to sit on? Will it be the same rock as before you began?

MelT "

Answer: "I do not know, all speculation is baseless thought and imagination, all speculation is from this current conditioning, self, and mind, that will no longer be there after the jump has occured. Who am I to try to make these choices, when, almost literally speaking, it is someone else who will be living the life in this body after it has occured? It will be his choice, not mine - Androgenicx"

Much thanks for your last post.

[MelT]

Good post as always, though I would disagree with some of your conclusions. I think you're suposing that my posting was aimed at you, when I already understand that you know where you're heading.

It really isn't as cut and dried as thinking, 'I'm enlightened, therefore the state will guide me', or that there is no thought of the past or future, or even that the person will continue through life in a state of permanent non-conceptuality. The person still retains a choice of thinking of past and future, it isn't taken away from them entirely, otherwise they wouldn't be able to cross a street If the Buddha had no thoughts of past and future he wouldn't have asked to go to Benares, or ask to be taken to preach at Vulture Peak. He wouldn't have been in a quandry before his death over taking paranirvana or remaining.

The future and past are no longer the focus of your thoughts on realisation, no, you're right, but that isn't to say that these thoughts can't be entertained - and sometimes will have to be, realised or not. Supposing an enlightened person's mother were dying. He has a choice of staying in the present and do nothing but go with the flow, or considering - as any adult should - where he's going to get the money from to help her. It isn't to lose the state to do so, as all states, all thoughts, past and future or otherwise, are still the natural state and 'realised'.

You still have the idea that there is a mental condition that must not be left otherwise it isn't realisation, but I can only stress again that this is an idea you'll move beyond very soon, as there is no better or worse state in equality, awareness, emptiness and unity. All is Buddha nature and intrinsic basic space.

This is from the book you just bought. I'm sorry it cost you so much, I could possibly have got you a copy from over here. But anyway, you'll read:

"....Since mind itself is perfect Buddhahood,
Do not seek Buddhahood elsewhere.

"If you put this into practice, it makes no difference whether thoughts arise, or indeed, what takes place...."

Being in a clear and open state of awareness, recognising thoughts to be awareness, whether of past or future, they can't sully the state of recognition or attainment. There is no leaving anywhere or returning, all thought is equal in emptiness and awareness.

Originally Posted by Androgenicx

Enlightened beings of the past have led and taught out of spontaneous unfoldment, not after sitting and thinking about what to do next - this would invalidate their "enlightenment" itself. Nothing matters, these questions don't even arise.

I thnk you've misunderstood the reason for my post. What I ask isn't relevant to someone who is enlightened, but it's certainly relevant for those hoping to reach it.

If left up to an enlightened person they would simply do whatever requires doing, as you say, with no intent or desire, and it's not a case of 'what should I do next?'. But an enlightened person knows that - so I'm asking those who intend to try for enlightenment what they consider might be their next step if the state should arise, not what would an enlightened person actually do.

People hope to reach it realisation for a number of reasons, many because they hope it will mean fame or that they'll be able to do nothing with the rest of their lives, or jsut that it'll give them continual happiness. I've asked what I have to allow people to examine their motives for trying to reach it in the first place and try to evaluate exactly why they're doing as they are. Post goal it's a bit late for that kind of questioning

Originally Posted by Androgenicx

There are a few indications of Enlightenment that only the person can know - and I believe and agree with it -
1) There is no more question "am I enlightened" or not, the question cannot arise
2) and this is important, ALL inner chatter permanently ceases. The brain permanently resides in a meditative theta state. All living thereon forth occurs as spontaneous enactment of calling and vision - thought does not occur any more. There is no internal chattering at all - the mind has ceased completely.
3) not only does the ego death occur, the physical consciousness and its boundaries change. The distinction of "me" and "that" or "me" and "you" that separates objects and people from yourself dies. Not intellectually, not 3/4th the way, completely and permanently.

I agree completly with 1 and 3 - I have no doubt whatsoever in my state, and there has never been, nor ever will be, a 'me' - but number 2 is missing the point slightly, but once you've read 'scriptural transmission' you'll understand why

Originally Posted by Androgenicx

If one is enlightened, those that may be guided by your hand will believe in you 100%, there is no convincing needed. If one feels the need to convince, enlightenment has not occured, there is still mild inner chatter and identity.

No, I didn't say that someone who is realised will want to prove anything, but those around him or her certainly will want them too, because it truly isn't apparent in everyone. Whether an enlightened person would be recognised or not is one of those things discussed within meditation quite a lot. Buddha himself was not recognised as realised by the first people he met, and there are no outward signs of achievemet unless you know where to look for them.

Originally Posted by Androgenicx

Besides, the goal is not to find an enlightenened being,

I'm not sure that I said one should seek such a being?

Originally Posted by Androgenicx

The search is within and ultimately for myself, the others are for guidance - if the first being to attain could come upon it himself, I am certain I can too.

I have no doubt you can, hence our conversation

Originally Posted by Androgenicx

"If you became enlightened this second, what would your next step be" - this is imagination into the future, not grounding in the present - this is a product of inner chatter and is as such empty and irrelevant. After enlightenment, enlightenment will spontaneously do what is to be done. Sitting around and planning before it is both futile - as life never can be controlled; all thought about the future is the illusion of control. There is no "choosing" after enlightenment, for there are no options from the arise of inner chatter to choose from. Life becomes just one spontaneous unfoldment after the other.

You're talking from the point of view of knowing that this is the case. You and I know what happens, but others here don't, and my question is for those who don't understand where they're heading. You have your goals sorted out, others wont be so lucky, and they may encounter full enlightenment walking down the street one day and become totally lost. I know of someone who, 22 years ago had a deep and spontaneous Kensho, who spent 13 years in a mental home because his family thought he'd gone mad. It's all well and good us knowing, we study this kind of thing, but we can't be totally aloof and just leave people to it and say 'it'll all sort itself out in the end'. Do you understand what I mean?

There is certainly 'choosing' after enlightenment, nobody sits and does not consider their actions afterwards or the feelings of others, or their obligations, not even Buddha. Every student in the first levels of practice are asked questions regarding exactly why they seek enlightenment and what their later goal is.

Originally Posted by Androgenicx

It is like the difference between drinking from the ocean of god-nectar, and jumping in it and losing onesself totally in it. Kensho, while closest to enlightenment, is still not close to enlightenment at all.

Again I think you have a slightly skewed understanding of both states, but it doesn't matter for now, I hope what we're talking about will help at least some here

MelT

[MelT]

As I said, the question of being recognised as realised is one that's often discussed. These are not my words:

"...Exploring if an outside observer can, in all cases, determine if a person is Enlightened or not, the venerated Indian Sanyasin, Sri Adi Shankara (sometimes spelled Sankara) (788-820), in his work The Crest Jewel of Discrimination [1] or as it is sometimes known, Viveka Chudamani [2], states that the Knower of the Atman (i.e., a person Awakened to the Absolute, Enlightened) "bears no outward mark of a holy man" (Stanza 539). Continuing, although there are variences found in the actual wording between various translators and translations the gist behind the words remains the same, Shankara writes:


"Sometimes he appears to be a fool, sometimes a wise man. Sometimes he seems splendid as a king, sometimes feeble-minded. Sometimes he is calm and silent. Sometimes he draws men to him. Sometimes people honor him greatly, sometimes they insult him. Sometimes they ignore him." Sri Shankara goes on: "The ignorant see the body of a knower of Brahman and identify him with it. Actually he is free from the body and every other kind of bondage. To him the body is merely a shadow."


A longtime chronicler of the Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi by the name of Arthur Osborne spent a good portion of his adult life in and around the ashram of Sri Ramana, and in the process produced several books on the Maharshi. He offers the following in his book My Life And Quest (1991) about the ability of someone recognizing an Enlightened person:

"In speaking of spiritual men, the question also arises of their recognition. It is not uncommon to hear some one express confidence that he would recognise a spiritual man if he met one. This, however, is not always possible. High spiritual attainment, even complete liberation, is not always recognisable. Naturally, it is not easy to give examples of this, for this very reason that they are not recognised, but one very striking one is that of Christ before he set forth on his mission. According to Christian doctrine, he was born without original sin (which means Self-realization from birth) and attained no new state when he went forth on his ‘Father’s business’; and yet he exerted no influence on others before that but went completely unrecognised. Not only is there no record of crowds flocking to Nazareth, as they would have in any country or age to the seat of one recognized as a holy man, but, on the contrary, when he returned there with his disciples his fellow-townsmen expressed surprise, if not incredulity that the local carpenter should have turned out a prophet. The Maharshi also was not recognized when he first attained Realization but only later when he began to shed Grace on others and act as a Guru." [/FONT]

Continuing on in a similar or like vein, in 'Dark Luminosity' the following is cited from the Sutras:

When the Buddha was walking along the road to Benares following his post-Enlightenment pause he was approached by a wandering ascetic. According to the custom of the time the ascetic greeted him and asked who his teacher was or what doctrine he followed. The Buddha told the wanderling that he was "the Victor and Conqueror of the World, superior to gods and men, an All-Enlightened One beholden to no teacher." The wandering ascetic could see no hint of anything of the Buddha's nature and wandered off as wanderlings are oft to do, mumbling under his breath something like, "If it were only so!"

Later on in the text, making reference to the fact that the wandering ascetic, even in the presence of the Buddha himself, was not able to recognize anything significant about the Buddha.

What I am saying is, whether a deeply religious follower, an Enlightened master of the first degree, or just a poor working dolt with no penchant toward things religious, sometimes Enlightenment can be recognized in others, sometimes not. In my case, even though I didn't know it or what Enlightenment was at the time, I still recognized whatever it was in the man I met.

MelT

[aum]

Wow, there really appears to be such wisdom and insight in this thread. I really need to sit and read through all of these with a non-anxious mind. I find that many times, waking life distracts me from my path. I need to learn how to see my path through waking life, and meditation seems like a useful tool. I've only ever flirted with it, not seriously tried it, for fear of doing it 'wrong.' Thanks all for creating and maintaining this

[Androgenicx]

One does not have to think of the past to cross the street nor think of a place to talk about it. I did not say that knowledge and memory of the past cease, what I said was that conscious thoughts about them cease.

A man does not have to have the rising of a thought "I must cross this road in such and such manner or I am likely to get hit" - the knowledge is already bourne in him and he can enact it without thinking about it, much like we often drive a car without thinking about it.

About condition 2 about enlightenment, I it is a matter of opinion from spiritual leader to spiritual leader. All true masters may have attained - but attainment is absolute experience not absolute knowledge. Hence why one enlightened master (many) consider the existence of an "atman", wheras the Buddha says there is no atman even, only thought bundles that once seen for what they are, will stop completely and the bundles will no longer re-manifest due to tanha.

Most, and I agree, say that upon enlightenment the mind is absolved completely, that no thought occurs, only spontaneous "vision" and the following of that vision. One could say this or that, that buddha nature is inherent and always and enlightenment is nothing special - it isn't , no magical powers are bourne of it, but certain conditions within the active consciousness change, and in my opinion and the opinion of various other masters, so does this factor in the way that I indicated.

"You are already enlightened there is nothing to attain" is profound and important - the idea of this teaching is to stop people from searching "out there" and to lose the conditioning that they cannot be enlightened for x or y reason. The fact remains that most are NOT enlightened but have the capacity to "Reduce" themselves to enlightenment, and that they don't have to "grow" to "Attain" it somewhere else.

Like I said, it is NOT possible to know who is enlightened or not, one can only intuitively feel and choose to believe in that intuition or not. People would be spellbound, would get entranced, some would even go into spontaneous samadhi just looking into Maharshi's eyes. Such qualities, such "draw", are reasonably good indicators to me.

Except for my agreement with the Buddha that there is no atman, only the false notion of an atman or permanent self that is never liberated because of this false notion itself, and that this 'atman' or soul is not some higher, inner being but simply conditions and thought bundles that keep rebirthing due to tanha - and my lack of viewing oneness/superconsciousness/whatever term as "god" and having anything to do with deities and rituals, most of my approach and meditation and beliefs currently are concurrent with Hindu beliefs rather than Buddhist ones - though like I said I am not a Hindu or a Buddhist, I take from all religions, all spiritual practices, and discover for myself as well. Buddhism came at a time and to people who had little concept of idol worship, divinity, and miracles - and hence downplayed this stuff - "after enlightenment cook rice wash pot" - and rightly so because people get caught up in symptoms of divinity and in seeking divinity outside rather than inside with these things - this does not mean that miracles do not happen, particularly around and enlightened being. In my experience and in the experience of hinduism for thousands of years, they do.

It is a question of "Gradual" versus "sudden" enlightenment. Dzogchen and most Buddhism follows a more gradual approach, preferring to abide in certain states (or non states whatever, its just words they cant encapsulate what were talking about, they will always fall short), dzogchen and similar, as the path to enlightenment. Here one needs to even drop even the idea of enlightenment and abide in the state itself - if enlightenment occurs it occurs. It is very blissfull, very peaceful, but for the most part and for most people, the "jump" into permanent no-mind has not yet occured - they are not enlightened yet but reminding themselves of this is contradictory to this particular path.

Although buddhism and dzogchen might have come from hinduism, they were offshoots, not tradition. Traditionally, one is to remind onesself constantly that one is not enlightened and keep striving, direct all ones attention towards the seeking of this "goal". One partakes in intense, long meditations, often extreme things such as meditation around fire with a pot of fire on ones head, meditating in a ditch for days, meditating under a waterfall, various austerities and such things. Consciousness is vastly purified, expanded, awareness is vastly increased, energy becomes vast - with this vast energy "powers" can come - one must avoid indulging and getting attached to these powers, self control and control over the mind become very strong. This experience is not like dzogchen and gradual paths, it is not characterized by deep peace and compassion most of the time. It, like regular life, oscillates between periods of spiritual fulfillment, zest, and bliss, and spiritual frustration and angst at not having reached the goal. One day, the body, mind, karma, etc are very very pure, but the person is very frustrated with all his attempts and his lack of complete enlightenment. Then, in one instance, he gives up completely, gives up everything, including his concept of "enlightenment" - and it occurs. One may say everything about it that goes against dzogchen and sunnata and these concepts of non-meditation, but this path has also brought about alot of enlightened masters.

Different views, different paths, same truth. One can argue and quote scriptures back and forth for either side, and in fact bring some in from other religions, and never come to a conclusion - for the only conclusion ever is the utter and silent one.

I do not follow the hindu tradition strictly, i do use alot of "gradual" approaches, a less intense seeking approach, but I never let myself stop learning, stop meditating deeply and intensely, stop seeking until I come to a place where inner chatter ceases completely. Buddha said, "No mind, no problem". Maharshi said, "When the mind is directed at the source of "I", the mind is absorbed in THAT - that is tapas". Large parts of the identity can be dropped, mind can be directed at sunnata and at seeing and realizing the emptiness of itself, of everything, at spaceousness, at non-conceptual non-duality, but these are all the smelling of the flower, not the beholding of the flower itself. Great peace can come, but enlightenment may or may not be there. It is a perfectly valid path in itself.

One may say that "what use is there in riling onesself up over enlightenment? Life is here, now, and that is all there is. Enjoy it, feel the bliss, if enlightenment comes it will come". This is a perfectly valid viewpoint. Another perfectly valid viewpoint is that "unless one is enlightened, rebirth will keep occuring, and the path will continue" - and to intensely seek enlightenment asap. This one resonates better with me - its a matter of using the identity, using the personality - false as it might be, to ones advantage by using methods most suitable for it to discover its own uselessness.

I don't take anything as "aimed" at me, MeIT, that is your assumption

I am a very stronghand writer, and my writing has much force behind it - always, and it might seem like "retaliation" - I assure you it is simple conversation. I too am posting my views for readers more than for you, I am not answering myself to you, just posting my viewpoint for all.

About your question of motives for enlightenment - that for some it is wealth, for some it is fame, for some it is the notion of sustained inner bliss, for some it is this or that. Nithyananda put it quite well, most seek "Enlightenment also" - they want it in addition to themselves, in addition to their prior motives, to their prior ideas of it. The seeker that will find it is who wants "Enlightenment only". In my case, I have simply recognized that all except Enlightenment is illusion, even the deepest states of dzogchen (or non states, whatever, words cant encapsulate). Wealth, fame, etc, are of no relevance to me. After Enlightenment I might live in the forest amongst animals, as a poor man in an ashram, quietly, without making known my enlightenment, or might become a massive guru. I do not know, I do not care what happens after enlightenment. I do not care much for experiences and bliss before enlightenment, though they are certainly welcome. I want only to face and be the truth - whatever it may be.

"I know of someone who, 22 years ago had a deep and spontaneous Kensho, who spent 13 years in a mental home because his family thought he'd gone mad. It's all well and good us knowing, we study this kind of thing, but we can't be totally aloof and just leave people to it and say 'it'll all sort itself out in the end'. Do you understand what I mean?" - You contradict yourself slightly - if all is buddhahood and all is empty, then whence arise this trouble with what has occured here? If one is enlightened, it matters not if one is thrown into a madhouse. There can be nothing bad that occurs of the passage towards the truth - though it may seem so from the outside and to us - it is his path, the reasons for it are unknown, could be karmic, could be the exact conditions he needs to grow fully.

As for me, I am renouncing my family permanently, not temporarily. I have no relationships other than my mother and father and some distant friends. My father is reduced to the bare basic - the male organism that carried the seed to produce my body-clothing, and my mother the female counterpart. I have nothing any longer to do with any of them. Spiritual progress is well recognized in India - I can see its possible complications in other countries, such things will not befall me.

To question the path and the road towards the truth due to complications that are only complications due to unenlightenment itself is rather contradictory and pointless, don't you think? To me it is simply fear and doubt to be ignored and overcome.

EDIT: Heres a video that talks about thought. All thinking is either a reference to the past - which exists no longer and is therefore bondage, or imagination about an illusionary future. Thinking about consequences cannot be real, only postulated. The consequences may or may not occur - it is simply imagination, where is the reality here? Besides, if all is empty and spaceous, where is the question of consequence or even considering it? One does not need to active consider someones emotions to be compassionate, one simply needs to respond with awareness. Osho said this very well - humans have always propagated compassion. Buddhism says "be compassionate". How can one cultivate an emotion by willing it? Hatred is a more real and pure emotion than this compassion - for it is not a cultivation and an act, but is expression of the inner state. Awareness brings compassion naturally. When awareness increases, compassion and virtue increase automatically, and when awareness is brought to negativity, it shrinks away and dies. One does not need to try and cultivate anything but awareness - awareness brings down thought. Complete thoughtlessness is the only way to abide in the moment, to abide in reality, abide in what is - not in imagination or in the past, which is the essence of the human consciousness usually.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmwAU09u1T0[/youtube]

EDIT: could someone fix this youtube embedding? I cant seem to embed it correctly.

[MelT]

Most, and I agree, say that upon enlightenment the mind is absolved completely, that no thought occurs, only spontaneous "vision" and the following of that vision.

'Most' is something I have to disagree with strongly. The nature of thought changes entirely, it doesn't stop. In all honesty I've studied enlightenment for over 25 years and have never heard anyone say that thought stops. It does in Nirvikalpa Samadhi and others, but that's a state preceding enlightenment/satori that does not continue in its entirety once it stops. Non-thought of samadhi is something you enter and then leave, it isn't permanent. I don't think that anyone would doubt the achievement of Ramana Maharishi as a fully realised being. This is his partial description of his experience after Nirvikalpa Samadhi and its later effects on him as Satori:

"I was something real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with the body was centered on that I. From that moment onwards, the I or Self focused attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death vanished once and for all. The ego was lost in the flood of Self-awareness. Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from that time. Other thought might come and go like the various notes of music, but the I continued like the fundamental sruti [that which is heard] note which underlies and blends with all other notes."

In the above, he states that 'thoughts still come and go' - it's absorption in the Self that doesn't move, (this is what makes it Satori). The nature of thoughts are changed, but they're still there. And, in writing the above, he was also engaged in thinking of the past, constructing sentences, therefore also thinking of a future. He hasn't become someone who can't or doesn't think, but purely reacts. He thinks when it's necessary to do so, never frivilously or without aim.

Thoughts lessen, certainly. But every enlightened being still has the choice of entering into mundane thought or not. What remains, as above, is continual access to the ultimate state that's with you whether you meditate or not. Everything is continually felt to be a movement of it, including 'your' own thoughts. You feel - I feel - everything as simply equality and one-ness, so whether or not I have thoughts of future or past or perceptions of this almost illusory body is of no consequence, 'she' is still there. And that too is a set of perceptions that have no inherent self - there is no 'me', nor 'you' to feel these things, there is only equality - and once your senses are turned towards seeing that it's something that's impossible to take your eyes off because it wont let itself be forgotten. Non-conceptuality and non-conceptual samadhi comes and goes of its own accord, but access never stops.

There are no good and bad thoughts, no good and bad states to enter or leave. No mind to purify, nothing that's anything other than basic space/god/ultimate reality.

We could also use the examples of the fully enlightened Buddha, Hui Neng, Garab Dorje, Nagarjuna and Longchen Rabjam, who all went on to not only write immense works on the subject of mediation after reaching fruition, but also continued to earnestly debate with others as a part and parcel of realisation. Debate amongst monks, regarding the nature of reality is common to both Hindu and Buddhist paths, and it's done whether you're enlightened or not, it's seen as a necessary form of teaching. Debate signifies rational thought and, just like we're doing here, helps the debaters and the listeners too.

It is a question of "Gradual" versus "sudden" enlightenment. Dzogchen and most Buddhism follows a more gradual approach, preferring to abide in certain states (or non states whatever, its just words they cant encapsulate what were talking about, they will always fall short), dzogchen and similar, as the path to enlightenment.



No, with all due respect that doesn't begin to encapsulate Dzogchen or even Buddhism. Dzogchen is one of the most 'sudden' schools there are, as I said earlier, along with Zen. There is no 'abiding in preferred states', that's what the point of my last two posts have been - there are no preferred states. We learn not to seek, and by doing so, attain the secret samadhi of non-doing.


"I know of someone who, 22 years ago had a deep and spontaneous Kensho, who spent 13 years in a mental home because his family thought he'd gone mad. It's all well and good us knowing, we study this kind of thing, but we can't be totally aloof and just leave people to it and say 'it'll all sort itself out in the end'. Do you understand what I mean?" - You contradict yourself slightly - if all is buddhahood and all is empty, then whence arise this trouble with what has occured here?

I'm not sure I see your point? The trouble was the fact that the poor man had spent 13 years in a home unnecessarily. which he found most worrying. He didn't have full enlightenment to support him, just a deep Kensho and couldn't simply say, 'Ah well', this is nice'. He himself had no idea what he'd experienced until we went over with a group to see him and try explain the situation. Many people are the same, and have a deep experience without ever understanding its meaning - hence my posting regarding what might happen post the experience. Not everyone understands what has taken place.

A few years ago I took part in a University study of people who had spontaneously had certain kinds of experiences and was lucky enough to be allowed by them to access their stories. Out of some 80 cases, about 30 were of Kensho, one of near Nirvikalpa Samadhi, one of total Nirvikalpa. Of these cases, only two were meditators. Nobody apart from the meditators had any idea what had occurred to them. The trouble is that it's so misunderstood here in the UK (I'm not sure of the attitude elsewhere) that it is treated as a mental illness by many, and is well hidden by those who experience it.


BTW, Ramana is talking about experiencing on-going reality (though automatically) as the third of the four yogas we talked of at the start, as the 'One Taste'. Thoughts still come and go, though they're much lessened unless you actively look for them. The point being with realisation of the One Taste, that you see the thoughts themselves as mere illusory movements of awareness, the play of 'ultimate reality'. They appear and it's entirely up to you whether you choose to entertain them or not, it would be very hard to live otherwise

I think really the best direction would be for us to post what we know rather than talking about things between ourselves too much and spoiling the impact of this fine thread you started. That we see things differently is a good thing, and I hope that we're showing two sides of the coin to those who are interested.

Do you want to do the Tantric paths or should I?

I'm enjoying this a lot, thanks for your time



MelT