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. 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 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 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. I'm not sure that I said one should seek such a being? I have no doubt you can, hence our conversation 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. 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
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
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
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.
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
There are various, various, various different seemingly illumined masters, and they all seem to have one thing in common - the truth of one, but they all have differing views on the subtleties. Maharshi says the fastest method is to follow the "I", and he says thoughts still arise. Nithyananda says there is no fastest method, each person will find a method suited for him that is the fastest, and that upon enlightenment all thoughts have ceased, and that there is only vision and the spontaneous fulfilment of that vision. As in the video I presented, the nature of thought is to not be present - to be either in the illusionary future, or be in the past - the presence of thought indicates the "not completely here" which is characteristic of unenlightenment. Enlightenment is self mastery to the fullest, Buddha also said "no mind no problem", and in the Buddhism the idea of the man taming the elephant and the monkey in quite pervading. If one is fully grounded in divinity everywhere, in divinity now, and sees perfectness in everything, whence arise thought - the thought that does NOT see perfectness in what is and therefore exists as a reference to the past or to the imaginary future? Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteshwar, Yoganand, and that whole Lineage say that Kriya Yoga is the fastest route to enlightenment. It has been said by the Buddha that there is no soul, and upon the death of a realized master, nothing is left - reincarnation and such and such are impossible. Yet there are hundreds and thousands of accounts in this lineage, and amongst the disciples of it, where they have seen flesh and blood apparitions of Mahavatar Babaji, who is a "paramukta" according the the Upanishads, a realized soul who has mastery over even death if he so chooses - How did this avatar re-incarnate if there can be no re-incarnation after realization? Yukteshar reportedly appeared to Yoganand in flesh and blood after his death, and related that he was incarnated on an astral plane and was helping people who were more spiritually developed and had overcome their bondage to incarnation on Earth, but were not fully liberated yet. Yukteshwar was reported to be a center around which countless miracles occured, and was reported to be in communion with the "divine" at all times - a jivanmukta - how then was he re-incarnated and not liberated fully? The Buddha incorporated little yoga or "scientific" approach to enlightenment as has been transcribed by the Yoga Sutras and by subsequent "reintroductions" of various techniques of Yoga, and uses wisdom, meditation, sunnata, and other techniques. To most, he was undoubtably a liberated being, to most - Maharshi was too, to most, Babaji, Lahiri and Yukteshwar were as well. To me, and many, Nithyananda is as well. Who is there to say which master is enlightened and which teaching is better or worse, faster or slower? They all have notable contradictions in their teachings. Prana energy and chakras are very noticeably and intimately related with thought and consciousness - meditation and energization of any particular chakra in the more intuitively sensitive practioner reveals marked and specific alterations in consciousness - the heart chakra when meditated upon and energized strongly suddenly brings a deep, causeless feeling of compassion and connection in the practioner, the same with the crown chakra suddenly brings a connection to formless divinity behind and before the materializations that one feels compassionate for through the heart chakra, and bodily presence starts diminishing. Through breath yoga, bhastrika and others, one can engage in 30 minutes of strong prana regulation from breathing, and find a natural state of extreme calm and low thought-activity for awhile after. How come then, Buddhism does not overtly talk about these sources of consciousness and include them in their practice? Subtle concepts and states of conception or non-conception or realization can only be discovered when one is ready - what decides whether one is ready or not? Karma and subtle imprints, as well as the latent level of thought and purity in the prana and chakras. Since prana is in many ways what undersees consciousness, pranayam and breath practices and charka meditation are obvious answers to accellerate ones spiritual progress greatly - yet many traditions such as Maharshi's and in Buddhism are almost completely inexpressive of their use and importance. Logical deduction of thought as the main culprit to not seeing the true nature follows that to see true nature peerlessly, thoughts must cease. One may argue that identification with thoughts only must cease - if the mind is still even producing thoughts, whether one chooses to acknowledge them or not can allow for great tranquility, but even when one does not follow the flight of a bird, birds flying in the sky still obscure the peerless vision of the sky. Maharshi himself said, "when the mind is focused on the self, the mind is absorbed in THAT. THAT is tapas". If the mind is fully absorbed, whence arise thought? It is contradictory. Again, logical deduction cannot begin to encapsulate the truth - but if enlightenment is a singular, absolute experience, it seems to me far more rational and in alignment with what one has learned about the nature of the mind, thought, and consciousness, that Nithyananda's statement that "all chatter ceases completely, there is only spontaneous expression of vision" alludes to the most final, permanent experience, and that states that do not have this quality are possibly a few notches away from it. Although this may be incorrect as well, perhaps enlightenment is an absolute union and experience but the symptoms along with the knowledge of how to reach there both differ fron realized person to realized person. I have personally, at the age of 14 with no prior concept of spirituality or god or any such thing, and no biases or expectations, felt something different, peaceful, and powerful in the presence of Nithyananda. He has reportedly given direct experiences of samadhi to many, just as many seemed to have experienced by simply looking into Maharshis eyes. In my experience and many's, he is a liberated being - there was even astrological scripture, once at birth and once later from pre-written akashic records (written tens of years before his birth - verifiable by the fact that the leaves that they were written on and saved inside the temple could only be written on when it is fresh, they were dry beyond years) that predicted that he, not of any saintly descendency, but to a normal middle class family not overinvolved in god, that he would become a Paramhamsa or liberated one. The astrologer at his birth further predicted that having read this astrology, his purpose was fulfilled, and that he would die in 21 days. He died on the 21st day. This being is to many and to me very apparently liberated, and he says all thought has ceased since the moment that the realization fully occured. There is scientific evidence, although not fully useful to the phenomena we are discussing, that he has fully control over his states and his brain and can pass into the breathless state at will - considered by many masters and teachers to be the sign of a real master. Who is to say that Maharshi was enlightened and that he is not and is therefore wrong? There are tens and tens of different approaches, tens and tens of different interpretations and ideas about the ideal path, tens and tens of subtle differences in the teachings. Enlightenment is absolute experience, not absolute knowledge. "I think really the best direction would be for us to post what we know" My friend, neither of us know anything. To suggest that anything worth anything is knowable and transmitable in words is silly "I've studied enlightenment for over 25 years" My friend, surely you are above the assumption that study of realization has absolutely anything to do with realization itself My posts do not denounce anything, and always maintain that there are various different, seemingly contradictory paths - for paths are not illumined but are passage to illumination, and are therefore subject to all the inconsistencies of that which is not the illumined truth. It maintains that one person may need no pranayam, no meditation after a point, no formal practice to find "it". Another might find the strict following of a particular path or yoga or meditation the only and best way for him. A third, like myself, might find it best to pick and pull the sugar from all that he encounters and leave what, to him, is sand, and form his own nectar to drink and bring him to "it". You said that "after a point, meditation is sickness", I simply pointed out that it may be so, but is not necessarily so. I have not once fully contradicted or denounced anything, yet from your side some of my ideas have been denounced as contradictory to your specific path - the stateless state, non-conceptuality - whatever, it is beyond me to attempt to write for I don't think I have grasped and entered the state you appear to have and cannot even begin to relate it in words. Your posts disclude mine, mine seem to include yours. Wherein this argument of two sides is relatively peerless non-contradiction occuring, for I am not in argument, yet you appear to be. Like always, I maintain I write not to respond to you, but to keep my responses sovereign without a final statement from your side that fully may denounce them to any given seeker reading this thread. I maintain, that many will find your perspective and the perspective and path that you represent more sensible to them and will find fruit in it, many will find it in the nature of the posts that I have had to offer. Again, I maintain, Enlightenment is absolute experience, not absolute knowledge - the paths and ideas are very many, and their subtle contradictions even more. Edit: You go ahead with talking about the Tantric path, I know little really about it except that it is the "other side of the coin" in many ways and is so mainly to break the bridges of duality that might pull one seeker into an illusion of "goodness" and bring them back into duality. I am interested in what you have to offer about it myself, the general internet is populated mostly by Tantric Sex and superficial stuff when one searches on "Tantra" Edit: While pondering what enlightenment really is - I realized a profound difference in approach and idea between alot of traditional hinduism, yogic approaches, etc, and some originally hindu and buddhist approaches - The yogic approach and the approach of Lahiri and Yoganand, Patanjali is to expand the consciousness unto the infinite - "god experience". All practices are aimed at purification of the self and of karma, and the attempt to expand onesself unto the infinite. Buddhist and many other approaches that do not even involve the concept of "God" or "universal consciousness" such as Zen, approach not to expand the consciousness and "purify" the self, but the dissolve the self and all its ideas and its existence completely. When the self no longer exists, all that is left is everything, and identity assumes with everything...the infinite and nothingness. It is the going to the root of the seat of "self" and unseating it completely. It is not the cultivation of compassion or this or that, it is the uncultivation of everything - and whence this occurs all that is left is compassion and love and infinity etc etc. Andrew Cohen says this well: As for me, I feel the latter is true liberation - where the self dissolves completely, which is why I do not pray, do not believe in "god" or in "cultivating" this or that, why I prefer objectless meditation and "simply doing nothing" in an attempt to unravel the false notion of self, rather than one-pointedness meditation that involves samadhi and expansion of consciousness - temporarily - unto the infinite. I feel that the experience is not a samadhi or a "union with god", but "tatvam asi" "that art thou" - losing the "I" and finding the "all" - always. I feel that the "god" and "samadhi" and "kriya approach" is incomplete upon nirvakalpa samadhi or the at-will union with divinity. Yukteshwar, Lahiri, and all the avatars - even Babaji, stop at this point and assume it to be enlightenment, forever "channeling" the divine, expressing "his will", but never losing their own identity of "atman" and realizing that "that art thou". This is not to say that this approach does not produce enlightenment - many of the past have achieved it - upon first aligning their beings wholly with the concept and experience of god, samadhi etc, and then realizing that they ARE that which they think they need to go into samadhi to come into union with, and at this point their identity has been cultivated to a level where it is very trodden and humble, and fully believing that god is supreme and all and that there is nothing else - and so are more easily able to drop the "I" and become the "all". The other approach as taken by zen, buddhism, etc, directly goes to the heart of this by starting to unravel the self bit by bit - with this "god" and this and that need to be dropped - as they are in the final stage of the true yogic approach as well, and at some point the self will unravel completely and reveal nothing to cling onto - all that then shall be left is identity with the all. I feel in conclusion that those who talk about "union" with god through samadhi exclusively, and those who re-incarnate and talk of god as "him", such as Mahavatar Babaji, Yoganand, Sri Yukteshwar, were god-realized men, but not enlightened - for enlightenment is not the realization of god, but the full realization that one IS god. Nevertheless, I feel that much can be taken in form of aid from pranayam and yoga even on the path to dissolve the self, for the glue which binds the layers of the self is thought - and this glue can be greatly loosened and weakened by working on the prana itself. EDIT: Though the question arises, why is "full enlightenment" - the dissolution of the self which ends suffering because all suffering is due to attempting to hold on to a static identity, and which liberates from further rebirth, better or more desirable than the "lesser" enlightenment as known to beings who still possess a seperate identity, but can pass into nirvakalpa samadhi at any time and feel fully blissful? In this case the self will keep reincarnating - yes, but upon achieving these "high yogic states", one may consciously re-incarnated as highly spiritually developed and able to achieve nirvakalpa samadhi almost right off the bat again...Why dissolve the self and have no further reincarnation when one could feel blissful at will in samadhi and yogicly control ones incarnations? Perhaps the bliss of "I am that" where the self dissolves is far great and far more liberating than the state of nirvakalpa samadhi itself..?
One can assume this - but eastern philosophy that appears to be "right" so far in terms of what one can experience by following what they "know" in terms of meditations, wisdoms, and experiential understanding, says that suicide only kills the body, not the self - and that you will re-incarnate, and possibly in a less favorable condition due to the cause and effect result of your actions. One also observes that in sleep, the body lives, while this "I" seems to die - is then the body the same as the "I", and will it also dissolve upon death? It seems to appear not. It is also far more fearful for most who commit suicide to kill ones identity completely than to kill the body - why, how come? Is there some intuitive unsaid that knows that despite death, only the circumstances will die but the "I" that it always refuses to drop will live on? In the light of these wisdoms, if one chooses to acknowledge them, suicide is a pointless mistake that will just throw "you" back a few spaces on the inevitable path, and is therefore not a choice.
"You" die and come back and tell me exactly what happens. Otherwise, you do not know, as you suggested to MelT earlier in this thread. What point can there be in hiding behind a wall of so-called "Eastern philosophy"? - that is oversimplification of an inadequacy. Oh, the unreal "I" that we say fears? And just how easy do you suggest it is to be "nobody"? Easier than suicide? Personally, I don't believe that invoking fear (an emotion, or state of being a "nobody" can turn off at will) takes us closer to your view. In light of all these wisdoms, it would be a travesty to be led away from one's heart if that is what matters most simply by fair-sounding words. The heart speaks without words, listens without ears, knows without senses, truly.
If we were not hiding behind some wall, we would be enlightened. All here in this thread are hiding behind some wall. Eastern philosophy has thus brought about most sense so far in the chaos of this life, and hence I put faith in its answers and its path - which involves suicide as a step back. As for the rest of your post, might be because I am just coming down from a DMT trip, I do not understand head or tail of it. What is heart? How do you what the heart speaks? What exactly are you talking about and how is it relevant to this topic? Please expound
Please don't tell me you follow "Eastern philosophy" when it contradicts its own message. You're more free than that, right? You don't need cues for what you say. Because I can only really know (in the sense that knowing is personal, not objective) what is within, to bring what is far and make it what is near is possible only by first finding the center of myself. Metaphorically, I understand it cannot be my "mind" (now in the Western sense, which separates it from the heart) which analyzes the world of sensation and experience - often considered the superficial realm. I and the things I analyze have the same origin! Unknown in its potential, infinite in its power, unmeasured in its apparent labeled names - this origin is as purely virtuous as the heart. The heart gives meaning, the heart still beats whether the mind believes it controls this beating or whether the mind is too feeble to detect this essence of life in transformation. The mind translates the heart's essence into words. But what good are words, if to you they are nothing but words?
You say, ""I've studied enlightenment for over 25 years" My friend, surely you are above the assumption that study of realization has absolutely anything to do with realization itself " Of course - but this would imply that what I know is based purely on intellectual assumptions and study, when it's based on direct experience. You have your own path and beliefs and I really don't want to try to stand in your way. We've had our debate, let's agree to differ and go on with the thread for the benefit of others MelT
A lot of words to talk about something as simple as silencing the mind. One cannot really 'study' the search for enlightenment. A well known koan comes to mind: 'Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!" "Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"'
How does one empty the cup? One can try, over and over again, but one finds that the very act of surrendering onesself and ones identity is next to impossible. I had the most intense experience of my life so far on a DMT trip an hour ago. So far all my meditation, all my "peace", all my "bliss", was ME having bliss. Was ME having peace. Thinking is going down, static agenda and identity "I am this or I am that" is going away, but being replaced by another concept "I am neither this nor that" - which is a concept in itself. I have had what I thought were "god" experiences, through meditation or otherwise - where i would suddenly have a large flood of endorphins/seratonin, see white and be consumed by bliss for a few seconds, and there would be "no mind". It was still ME however, FEELING blissful. I thought these were "god" experiences. On a high dose of DMT, I surrendered completely to all thoughts, all identity, all everything, to consciousness itself, realized every second that in the form of a "formed thought" with human language in it, or otherwise, I was always trying to be in control. Trying to "get" enlightenment. I was sick of all the search, all the seeking. All that seeking has EVER brought, EVER, was a feeling that "now this will do the trick", and then it has NEVER, EVER done the trick. It was giving up...but not on any concept, not on any person, not on the idea of life - but giving up utterly, inexplicably, just - thats it i dont care about life, death, consciousness, observing consciousness, i dont care to kill myself, i dont care to try to live, I dont care to try to seek, nor "try" to be in the moment. As long as you "try", existence waits patiently. As soon as you stop trying - not consciously "stop trying" - which is an attempt in itself - but when you come to a point where you are sick of trying and realize that your trying will never take you anywhere and never has - then a spontaneous, choiceless surrender occurs. I realized today that I cannot get enlightenment. It is laughable now to even think that "I" can get enlightenment - it is infinitely more vast a force, superconsciousness, for my petty self to possess or "have". This was the first instance of aware ego death. Not the cessation of the usual sense of identity, not the temporary suspension of an active ego as occurs during meditation when the mind goes silent, but an inexplicable ego death that cannot be put into words. Everything I have experienced so far I thought were glimpses of infinity, I dont even care what they were anymore. I could vaguely verbalize them and write them down for people to read, and I used to question silently "they say that the experience cannot be explained...i cant explain it exactly but quite well..perhaps I am the first to have writing skills and communicative abilities that are good enough to express it". HA. I was ignorant, blind, clueless - not my fault - but I was. This cannot be worded, cannot be expressed. It was not ME expanding into some form of consciousness that enveloped the room. It was not some consciousness coming into me. I don't know what went where or what happened how, I don't care - all I know was there was bliss. Not me experiencing bliss, nor bliss consuming me - there was no me to experience bliss...but there was bliss beyond bliss nonetheless! For the first time I vaguely felt alive in everything around me, in my dogs in the room. But it wasn't ME feeling alive in them! It was just LIFE! Everywhere! I just didn't exist! Yet something experienced it...AAAAH, words cannot express! On the comedown immediately after the "Experience"..although there was noone there to "experience" it, I felt and realized profoundly how all existence everywhere around you is all the time pulling hard and just WAITING for you to come to it. Its THERE for you, EVERY second, pulling..pulling..all we must do is surrender completely and wholly. All the work, meditation, yoga, is not for getting enlightenment - it is impossible for "YOU" to get "IT" - all the work is for unwrapping your identity and clearing your consciousness and energy, expanding your consciousness latently by increasing the energy, so as to be able to surrender fully and completely and become this - it is simply not innately biologically possible for most to experience it off the bat - it is too intense..intense is not even a word..this is the most intense thing there is, how can the word intense apply to something that has no greater? One has to work to make ones consciousness and energy channels capable of it. I was ignorant, I am clueless, the steps on how to meditate are fairly accurate, apart from that I take back all that I have professed as knowledge or advice in the form of my ego-stroking articulate posts on this forum for the last year or so. I know nothing, I want to know nothing - I am sorry for my posts, they were complete garbage. Not a drug induced stupor - DMT doesn't do that - its not simply the flood of seratonins, though I am sure that happens to - it is an unnameable, unquantifiable, inexpressible cognitive shift...my god I have been blind. I love you all, take care. Edit: Right now the after effects on my consciousness are that I feel worthless back in this petty "self" - not in a "i suck" kinda way, but "this sucks". Theres a deep drive and restless longing to be back there and never come back...this has sealed the deal and fortified my decision to return to india and find this once and for all...Such a journey, involving wanting to find it so badly, and having to come to a point where I dont want it at all anymore to find it again...what a painful paradox, but so worth it when it occurs.
Some people have a harder time than others 'emptying their cup'. There is really no secret method; it just is. Perhaps after 30 years I take it for granted that it's actually an easy thing to do. Meditation is the cesastion of conscious thought. It doesn't take dozens of paragraphs to discuss it. Action is better than words in these cases.
The goal of spirituality/meditation is to cease conscious thought, theres various methods, and theres energy meditations and insight meditation that does not revolve around complete cessation of thought but lending awareness to the subject at hand. Action is better than words for he who is doing it, for those who have never done it some guidance - some vague path is helpful, although useless to make the "jump" to thoughtlessness - this can only be discovered on ones own. What happens when you empty your cup? Im asking you for your specific experience
I can hear the crickets singing the praises of macaroni and cheese. ^^ That makes about as much sense as any other words would. How does one describe that which is without description?
One can always compile some vague, almost useless words to try to point towards the experience - which is what all spirituality has done since time. Zen is the only one that seeks to go to the heart without talk, without words, without anything, short circuiting the intellect with gibberish and with senseless phrases and with koans. This is a very powerful, very direct method, that "points to the heart of buddha nature" as Bodhidharma said, but it isn't the only, and certainly isnt the only that has resulted in meditative experiences and enlightenment. One could make vague statements such as "there is no identity, no conscious thought, no recognition of any familiarity or unfamiliarity to anything external or internal. There is just inexplicable vacancy". Many have said something along this line to attempt to describe the neutral, thoughtless state. These have been my "glimpses" during meditation before. Just vacancy, emptiness. I just had an experience that was far more inexplicable than the glimpses I had before - as painfully and uselessly described in the previous post. There isnt just "one state", else everyone who finds the meditative state where there is no conscious identification or thought would be enlightened.
Thank you for sharing this experience with us. I speak for myself when I say I'm humbled to be part of a community with amazing people like you - and it's not just on Grasscity, it's in my human heart.
I am guilty as charged for my aversion to textual description. My first exposure to meditation was in conjunction with my early martial arts training, and that was all Zen. Decades later, while I have travelled many roads and experienced many things I am still reticent to try to put them into language that ultimately loses 90% of the 'meaning' of what I would like to convey. Here is a brief attempt. When I attain that state there is nothing and everything at the same time. Satori is not bliss as some would have it, though the first time one gets to that place that is often the impression one takes away. In many ways it is both blissful and terrifying at the same time. When someone first experiences the 'death' of the ego it can be very dangerous if they are not well grounded spiritually. One is open to everything in one's subconscious as one travels through that phase before the mind is truly silent and one can experience the 'truth' (I am rather averse to that term because truth is often quite subjective) that everything there has ever been, is, or will be is all part of the same thing.