ion

Ion,

 

Thank you for your detailed explanations here and in other threads.

 

Something that would be helpful for the discussion... How do you define "enlightenment"? What is it (the process)? Or, what happens? Is there an integration of the male & female components?

 

Thanks.

 

Is there an integration of the male & female components?

To know the male and dwell with the female is to be enlightened and to have emulated the Tao, but not full enlightenment.

The male and female are one energy, the same fabric and an aspect of the tao which is the path that plays through the fabric. Niether really integrates the other, but more so emulates the other by immediately reflecting the other and so integrates in spirit, but the two "stuffs" although in the same space, never integrate.Except in the sense that yin integrates male at the begining of the interplay...her latent potency is activated by the initial action. And because of the ultimate receptivity of female and the infinite charge of male, the integration is eternal so female is for ever in activity. If the power of male was not infinite yet the female was still ultimately receptive, she would wear out the male energy and exploit the entire charge until it was difused back into nothingness and she returns to a state of still receptivity with no power lost, no energy spent

It is the nature of yin to integrate, exploit to the full potential of the integrated charge until it is chargless, then return to still receptivity.

To dwell with the female is to respond to action with equal force without ever taking action, it is to be female integrating male and letting go of male to return to female.

The path of Tao comes from stillness and returns to stillness

Female(stillness-receptivity) always integrates male(charge-stimuli) and the process is called the way(Tao). Male can not integrate female because the path of male is action and initiative, male is dependent on female so it original state is action and intitating activity.

How do you define "enlightenment"? What is it (the process)? Or, what happens?

I think utter and total enlightenment would be the absolute anihilation of the egotistical disposition.

When a person "looses" its life and unites with the source after letting go of all things relative. We return to the primal state of the entire universe of universes, stillness and a sense of being. The preceeding state of sense of self, is sense of being. This sense of being is in all of us but it is the one sense of being at the core from the original awareness that we all share.

When the body dies and the identity goes away and the sense of self vanishes there is a sense of being without association that has always been there, so it is like one never died because the sense of being is eternal.

To become ultimately enlightened is to die in meditation, to go through the same process of death, letting go of everything and the literal death of the consciousness and its perception and disposition. The person who does this would be effectively no more, and has died for humanity. True enlightenment is not for the self but to become a beacon to humanity to guide them back to the Tao by sacraficing the self to the Tao.

The self is not the body, the body is the birth place of a self's disposition by its subjection.

What we consider to be the self is a conceptualized ideology based on the experience of livving. At the core of consciousness is the awareness of being, a sense of being, but as humans we then concieve of being and conceptualize it.

We concieve of life and living, and having a life of our own, and hold those conceptions more then any other concept. Living a life, & having a life are conditioned concepts, and the self is also one, and the ego is a byproduct and dependent on the concepts of life, having a life/being alive, and living ones own life. Because of these concepts we also concieve of death and thus we have to experience it. The reality is the mind does not die, but it becomes aware of the experience of death and returns to the disassociated, nonrelative state of "sense of being".

This is why I choose as a general term, awake, rather then enlightened. Although in some conventional sense of the term many of us here have been "enlightened" to a degree, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But "enlightenmet" in the big sense is to lay yourself down so the path to liberation can be taught to the delusional.

A person, having a disposition, can not teach the path ot liberation from a relative position. Liberation is for the betterment of humanity and not enlightenment of the self. So the enlightened one teaches liberation to and for humanity from the nonrelative positionlessness of Tao.

My experience would be hard to put into words as a direct statement...

If your meditation is a tool for subduing the ego, and if the meditation of your heart is for the salvation of mankind...

And if you, not holding any thoughts or concepts in meditation, consider the experiencing of bliss as a choice you can make, and you choose not to, but let go like a thought, then you will be miles closer to your goal.

If you choose "no" when offered bliss and go deeper your awareness will expand and you will aquire compassion.

True enlightenment, like total enlightenment in the sense of becomming a buddha can not be had for selfish purposes or for the self and there is no bliss to be had until the salvation of all man kind. To truly become ultimatly enlightened is to have sacrificed your inner "life concept", your sense of self to it is the death of anything you could call your self.

To "refuse" bliss is to ascend higher and to gain compassion. Bliss is a distraction of the ego and a fascination of the ego.

To unite with the source is to experience "true love" which has the byproduct of blissfullness. To a heightened awareness during mankinds current condition to experience "true love" has the by product of compassion.

If you say no to bliss, let go of it like a thought, you will face the ego and be challenged by its thoughts and distracted by its offerings(bliss), and you will understand the predictement that mankind is truly in, and then you will have compassion.

Hello Ion,

 

In the beginning? I'm surprised once again! I had no idea you were able to perceive the beginning. This is another masterful example of your psychic potential that intrigues me. Perhaps I can share my observations and you can make a judgement based on my experience.

 

There is stillness, from stillness comes light and the material world. None of these are separate, for light is just energy that does not move, the material is energy that moves. This is a very simplified explanation, but it is also the reason when one experiences light that they do not sense the existence of the world or thought, because when one is within the light these things seem to cease to be. (Keep in mind that I only use the word energy because it is the closest thing I can come to describe it in a way for someone that hasn't actually experiencing it can understand it on an intellectual level.)

 

Now the fact of the matter is that nothing ceases to be, rather the "I" that exists within the light is not the light, which is what "I" return to when I return to the light. So the "I" that I am is still within this world, but the "I" that I am within the light is unaware of it, because within the light there is no thought to perceive it.

 

I can walk and talk and think, yet I am aware of the stillness, but not aware of the light, because light is not the stillness, even though it is not moving, light is the precursor to the material, the energy that is created from stillness that gives birth to the material. When I say we live forever it is because we are born of the light and are the light, just as we are born of the stillness and are the stillness. There is no truth in this, it merely is.

 

I like your play on words though, the whole Genesis thing really added some oomph to your opening post.

 

Aaron

Light, does not exist in non-existence. Your mental fixation is on the male principle, and I think that is what you mean by "light". The "light", is not the activity I am refering to.But it appears as brightness so most people call it light.

The activity is not the light. The activity the interplay that happens because of the opposing charecteristic(direction) of male & female.

Action is when stillness/receptivity is ended by the spontaneous being of the male principle(light), activity is their interplay and the things that result.

Stillness the original stillness before the "light", has an awareness. it is the awareness of nothingness and stillness.

Once the awareness arises, it has self awareness. Once it claims to be the nothing that it is, the original expression of nothing express'e itself as the inverse reflection of nothing. The posotive(male, light) form of nothing to the negative(female,dark) form of nothing.

These two forms of nothing have the same awareness, yet have two self awareness. The yin has an awreness, the yang has awareness and it is the same because they have the same self nature, yet do to the opposing charecteristic, they have two self awarness of the same self nature,(eternal nothingness).

Because the posotive(light) came to exist in the realm of eternal nothing, (which was the female in stillness,) there now also exist in the realm of nothing and the field of infinity the quality of symmetry between the posotive and negative and so the symmetry is aware as well.

Because of the opposing nature to these forces (Pos and neg), there is activity, the male contracts, the female expand, the male undualtes, the female pulls and spreads dots of light in every direction, but the male never actually travels across any space.

Viewed from the male, it looks one way, viewd from the female another.

You Aaron are viewing it from and fixated on the male. It is best to fixate on neither and then you will see the Tao which is the nature of all the things happening and the path of them to creation.

The light is not creation it is not form and form is not from the light. What is considered male later in the interplay is the producer of dark empty space that is filled with form. But from pre-existence, the space that is produced within female by way of male is actually the first form. Space, true void that is filled with matter is form. But that is probably best saved for another thread because that is not what we are talking about here.

Because of the qualities like symmetry, diversification, multiplying and dividing,that arise in the interplay as a result of the appearence of the male principle, a plethera of awareness's arise in pre-existance, an awareness of every percievable phenomenon.

Becauase nothing actually exist there by our standards, only their awareness, and awareness of all the concepts actually exists. There is a collective awareness that forms atop all of them. It is not the awareness of stillness or void or light. It is not the awareness of female, male and symmetry and all the other formless elements of existence but the collective awareness of both yin and yang and everything inbetween. It is the essence of mind.

Mind, using the Yin & yang,("light & dark"), and the formless elements that arise out of there interplay concieves of space and form.

The op was NOT talking about the creation of form, it was about the evolution of awareness from the abyss of nothingness. They are corresponding and mutually dependant on eachother

Aaron. It is difficult to talk to you about this because your comments are actually off topic so I am trying to answer you, which I have to explain alot to you first for you to understand, but also trying to stay on topic.

Maybe it would be best for you to start a seperate thread for questions about what you are refering to and I will do best to answer them. Becareful not to stereo my responses and make broad assumptions based on misunderstandings like you have been doing so instead of explaining myself I can elucidate the Tao.

Edit-It wasn't genesis, it's the Gospel of John. Many people make reference to the place where all things originate as "the begining". It truly is the best way to describe pre-existence.

Hello Ion,

 

I am not passing judgement, nor making assertions, I was merely asking you a question. As for your answer, it was wrong. You do not clearly understand Void and Light, but that's fine. I think what has happened is that you came up with a conception of these things that met your expectations. To help you I will explain this to you, in the hopes it will help you in your practice.

 

Void and Light are not separated by dimensions, they exist within the same space and all space. All things arise from stillness and stillness exists within all space. What people like to call the void is actually stillness, it is the force from which all things are given birth, the creator of light and material. Light is forever and always, material existence is forever and always, it is also light in movement. Think of it as light is still energy and material is moving energy. So the world in which we walk and think in, is actually the light in movement. In order for one to experience this light, then one must first experience stillness to become aware of it. Of course this explanation has no value, since the only real understanding of these phenomena comes from experiencing them. It is much like describing how to create a paper airplane. One might understand the basic concepts of building an airplane, but without actually building that airplane, one can never really know what the airplane actually is.

 

You are free to be psychic, but just as you offer your guidance to those about my status as a pretender, I offer my guidance to those that there are many that claim these abilities, but none that can actually prove them in practice, because the body we live in and the world we exist within does not work along those lines. My enlightenment did not grant me any knowledge of the creation or the creator, it did not grant me an audience with the Gods, nor any great psychic potential, it only allowed me insight into the nature of existence, nothing more. I will not claim anything I have not received.

 

I have however spoken to greater powers, those beings that have passed without losing their identity of self, so I know they exist, but I also know that I am no great power, nor are there any great powers present on this forum. If these great ones are awake within the material world, I know they are silent, for their duty is not to guide but to watch. If they choose to guide, it will never be to give an answer, but to encourage others to seek the answer. Now for those who are queasy with my sudden shift to the supernatural, let me assure you that there is no way I can prove this to you, so I will not ask you to believe this in any way. This is merely my experience and I accept it as that.

 

Aaron

You mis understand. ZWhat you are calling void and light is what shows me that you have a simple understanding.

It is neither void or light. Light comes from this dimension...actual light so it is dimmensions apart. What you are calling void and light are the primal male and female. The light as you call it is not light because light is a product of relativity, it is the male principle, the yang.

Yes they do exist in the exact same space and yes, both have the nature of nothingness, it is that nature and there opposing direction that causes the "interplay", the undulation of the "brighteness"(male,yang) through the darkness(fe-male,yin).

What people like to call the void, is not stillness as you say, it is a state of activity. What people call no-existence is stillness, when the "light" comes(action), stillness epands infinitely outward and light expands infinitely inward so viewing the female a person sees vast emptiness. Viewed from the male, a person see's eternal brightness.

The male(light,pos.), is always in a state of activity and has not will not ever be in a state of non active stillness. Pre-existing the light is the femine principle(neg. yin), in a state of stillness(infinite receptivity).The void springs into expansion at the onset of male into the ecact same spaceless dimmensionless space.

I can tell you do have understanding but it appears your self image does not allow you to see that my understanding is far more complex regarding the subject. If you have further questions or statements refine them to such.

When you call someone a pretender and it turned out to be because you misunderstoood what I thought I said clearly. That what you call light pre-exist the concept of light, and what you call void is the first feminine response to action, it is only step one in the interplay.

What we are discussing here is merely the first step in the interplay of yin-yang and is paperthin as far as my understanding goes.

The essential nature of yin and yang is nothingness...Infinite nothingness, this is expressed as the feminine principle. All tho' the yin principle is a form of infinite nothingness at the point that it has a self awareness the original expression and self nature transends the 1 form of nothingness and nothingness is expressed as male(light) which is the same energy and quality of the feminine principle exept inverted.

They have the same self nature, the same awareness, descriptivly they have all the same "qualities"and occupy the same "space", yet, because of the inversion their energies flow in opposing directions.

The male(light) goes forever inward, and the female(dark) goes forever outward. It is not space and the light doesnt actually travel through it. It is somewhat of a nondimmensional firmament that nothing could travel across.

The only thing that actually "exists" in preexistance, the pseudo dimmension we are discussing, is the awareness of the forces and principles that pseudo exist, in a nonexistant state.

When the "light" of yours fisrt shines a plethora of awarness and principles come into pseudo existance because of the existence of male.

This is how the sourceless source creates thru non-assertion...There is no "I'am".

The sourceless source(the principle of infinity)express's itself as nothing, the feminine principle, a state and law of non'existence. However the expression of the principle of infinity was not "feminine proinciple" it was "nothing", so the expression and law of nothing trancends the confines of female and spontaneously express's itself as male(light) and the two go into action.

when it is just stillness, there are no describable charecteristics, once there is activity things can be percieved. Because there is female and male, there is SYMMETRY. A symmetry can be percieved, there opposition can be percieved, diversification from one thing to another happen all sorts of things that we call charecteristics and qualities can be percieved.

And it all happened because the sourceless source said "nothing".

I would have thought that this was derailing your thread but then I remembered the title. If you want to know more about what you know little about let me know, I would be happy to expand your knowledge on what you call light and void.

Stillness does not have to be linked to nothingness, nor somethingness.

 

I am thinking here that it can shine by its own quality, or essence, if you may. Does it have to mean something else? I suppose it does, for different minds.

 

Nothingness connotes a feeling of nihilism. Stillness allows for the balance of both conditions of something and nothing. But such an argument does not really achieve anything, except to create a bit of misunderstanding for those who are not familiar with such concepts.

 

On a practical level, contemplation will be difficult to generate without bringing the mind to a still point. This still point is not to be confused with having no thoughts. Having no thoughts simply means having a blankness of mind (achieves nothing worthwhile, btw), which is different from keeping the mind taut and ever-ready to hit the target of serene contemplation, like a drawn arrow awaiting release, with the bow's tension primed perfectly by a skilled archer patiently awaiting his mark.

I'm refering to the stillness of the original feminine energy of the universe and all existence, preexisting the original male energy.

The fact that stillness (to the point of non-existence) is the natural state of the feminine principle is the basis for many Taoist expressions and much of the Tao te ching.

It is that stillness at the primal core of all realities that you are trying to achieve in meditation. It is to return to the begining of your being and reality where we share the original awareness of the stillness of unreacted nothingness. This is why meditation can and has been a sucseffull mode of regenerating...if it is done with understanding it is to return to the source and to return from the source.

That isn't self contradicting at all.

 

It is easy and simple but people dont get it because they get something else and you cant have two belief systems at the same time.

I think the relationship between the contradictions is meant to emphesis something indirectly.

edit-to expand so I dont seem like a condesending jerk because I didn't mean to but it actually looked that way.

He alludes to be exluded (by choice and default), from virtually all cultural affairs which causes him to seem peculiar to the masses, and possably even like a bumb, but invaluable to those who see his worth, which livving by non-compulsion, unassertivenes and having letgo of conditioning is probably very few.

Every one looks at him like "wtf?" becaus they believe that joy and pleasure really are had by pursuing desires and that the rituals and affairs that they live by for sustenance and enjoyment are simply just that and hes looking at them like "wtf?" because he understands the simple truth of it all.

The principles of following the way and finding contentment are simple and straight forward, and that if everyone did we would live in harmony and not be in want, yet to fully put it into practice means to walk away from where your at.

That isn't self contradicting at all.

It is easy and simple but people dont get it because they get something else and you cant have two belief systems at the same time.

Is english your native language, because you hare saying it backwards. Awareness can exist without any of the aforementioned things, although they can't exist without awareness.

I hare saying what? I don't understand.

I did gather from your post that you do not understand what I am saying.

Stillness is the original face of the farbic of reality. The awareness of that stillness triggerd activity. The awareness of that stillness still exists, and always will exist, because its nature is eternal. Activity, is a result of action, the action activated the latent energy that was stillness, the action and activity which is the same yet transformed potentiel that was stillness.

Awareness has its orgins in stillness. Activity gains awareness and gains activity in and from stillness.

I am not speaking english, I am using english to speak Tao.

Peace-

edit-to put it another way. If awareness can exist without all those things as you say, they it can exist with nothing.

Nothing has awareness, that is the stillness I refer to.

The awareness of nothing is the awareness of stillness, it is in the nothingness that awareness was born and it was because of the awareness that activity ever came into being.

Great, then can you tell us the nature of the void and light? Rarely do I have the chance to ask an omniscient person these questions, so please forgive me if I am presumptuous. I simply find it interesting that with all your psychic potential you still choose to speak to us with typed words, wouldn't it be more practical to telepathically contact us? Or is there some kind of taboo related to the invasion of the mind? I'm not sure how the super-true-enlightened masters operate, so forgive me again if I am confused.

 

Aaron

You are the first person that I've interacted with on this website that crystalizes peoples passing statements into hard assertions for the purpose of profiling and degrading.

One of my psychic sensitivities is the ability to see essences and it is connected to intuition.

I eperience precognition in a way that I have no control over. It is usually about mundane seemingly meaningless event.

I do not read minds but I do pick up thoughts that are not mine from time to time. I seem to have acsess to what many feel is deep esoteric knowledge about the orgins of certain things. I'm not going to turn my membership into an attempt to prove of anykind of psychic abilities.

As I said I have psychic sensativities that is what I call them rather then call myself a "psychic" and rather then say I have abilities. Where I lack in social skills the psychic sensitivities help me to communicate.

Again, I am not going to fit into, or take responsibility for your preconceived notions based on your generalizations of what I implied.

Those are your images that you are projecting and the only foundation for any of it is in your mind, not in what I shared about myself.

Clearly you do not show the receptivity and unprejudiced nature of an awakened person by any of my measures. Where I gave you credit in my first response, I now have my doubts. I say this not to insult you but for the sake of any impressionable forum member.

Anyway, to offer a response to your question...

The relationship between void and light is a chasm of several "dimmensions" apart.

Often when invisioning the void we first come to understand it as vast infinitely empty space, but this is not true void.

"Void", and "light", are niether void nor light. They share the same exact self nature and it is the nature of nothingness. Void is the initial expression of the sourceless source, the light is its inverse reflection and comes into being spontaneously because of the all encompassing nature of the expression.

Nothingness has two sides and then it is complete, there is a posotive version of nothing and a negative version of nothing, and togeather they are true nothing, and within them there is much much more...

If you are one of the people that I have met that have invisioned this creation from void or light then you should understand that void is a representation of female, and light is a representation of male, or yin & Yang

What about:

 

Action has its root in awareness.

 

Symmetry has is root in awareness.

 

Activity has it's root in awareness.

The root of awareness, the birthplace, is in the original stillness. Activity has awareness, but activity is birthed from stillness, and stillness births awareness.

The birth of anything is triggered by the awareness of the thing that prceded it, so all awareness has its root in stillness and branches out through all things.

Awareness, and self awareness,symmetry and diversification, are the modes of transmutation. This is true for things like me and you, and for things like stillness and activity.

Although chapter 70 & 20 could be differientiated by looking at specific details, I think they can also be said to be two sides of the same coin.

What is the difference between assent and denial?

What is the difference between beautiful and ugly?

What is the difference between fearsome and afraid?

 

The people are merry as if at a magnificent party

Or playing in the park at springtime,

But I am tranquil and wandering,

Like a newborn before it learns to smile,

Alone, with no true home.

 

The people have enough and to spare,

Where I have nothing,

And my heart is foolish,

Muddled and cloudy.

 

The people are bright and certain,

Where I am dim and confused;

The people are clever and wise,

Where I am dull and ignorant;

Aimless as a wave drifting over the sea,

Attached to nothing.

 

The people are busy with purpose,

Where I am impractical and rough;

I do not share the peoples' cares

But I am fed at nature's breast.

In the begining was the word, and the word was "nothing" as it stretched through the darkness, and brought forth the light.

Awareness has its root in stillness. Stillness has its root in the principle of eternity. Stillness is aware and is self aware. The awareness of stillness is the root and foundation of all consciousness.

Awareness has its root in action. Action has its root in the principle of eternity but comes from stillness. Action is aware and is self aware. The awareness of action is near the root, and in the foundation of all consciousness.

Awareness has its root in symmetry. Symmetry bares the imprint of eternity and has its root in stillness and action. Symmetry is aware and self aware. The awareness of symmetry is near the root, and in the foundation of all consiousness.

Awareness has its root in activity. Activity bares the imprint of eternity and has its root in symmetry. Activity is aware and self aware, it is near the root, and in the foundation of all consciousness.

The collective awareness of these is aware, and has self awareness. The collective awareness bares the imprint of eternity and of the negative and posotive principles of stillness and action.

The self awareness of the collective awareness percieves within itself order, and the potential for order, and within itself (non-exsitance) it percieves existance and the potential for existance (space and form).

Existence is within the perception of the collective awareness of non-existance. The creator has its root in awareness and is an aspect of non-existance, and not the creator of non-extstance, but is the creator to consciousness within existance, and within existance its spirit ismade a god.

Anything that exist is a concept to the trancending awareness. If what exist has objective reality or not, to the consciouss it is subjective, experienced and integrated as a subjective concept. Life and livving are relative conepts experienced by awareness. Death is a concept to awareness, awareness conceptualizes its experience and then trancends.

Within existance, physical things have their reality, numbers have their places. Within awareness, physical existance has no reality and is experienced as concept.

To trancending awareness, god and gods are principles and concepts, self is a concept, collective is a concept, and none have any reality.

Hello Ion,

 

I think we're talking about two different types of "awareness", intellectual and experiential. You had an intellectual awakening, a knowledge of the nature of the universe on an intellectual level that allowed you to view things in an unbiased manner. I would wager this is the experience most Taoists have in regards to "awakening", and Buddhists for that matter. When I talk about enlightenment, I am talking about an experiential awareness, one that is beyond rationalization, but stems from an awareness of the source of everything, the void, the light, whatever you want to call it. When one experiences this then they understand the connection between all things, as well as the transient nature of all things. Compassion is not based solely on the desire to liberate, but also because one is aware of the synchronistic experience of all things.

 

Those who have only had an intellectual awakening will lean towards liberation (imo), not realizing the synchronistic nature on a truly experiential level. There is nothing wrong or right about this, rather it is just an observation I have made. An intellectual awareness is better than no awareness at all, so it should not be diminished, rather I am merely stating that there is another nature to awareness often missed, because it is mistaken for an intellectual awareness, or assumed to not truly exist.

 

This experiential awareness requires no guidance to achieve, because it is merely becoming aware of who you are, not just the you that you have been taught to be, but the eternal you. I hope this helps to clarify a bit of what I am talking about.

 

Aaron

Yes intellectual awakening. Also social and metaphysical. I began to understand what makes people do what they do, how people came to be and from what we came.

Quite literally I began to see through time on many levels. Precognition, psychic sensitivities of many kinds and an understanding of where all things come from to where as though I understand the fundamentals of creation as though I was taught them culturally but there is no one around to have taught me.

I have a more complex understanding of the unfolding of awareness, force, space, and time, and the primal interplay of the male and female principles then anyone I've ever seen and it came to me through awakening. In the same way that all things spring out of non-existence

I some how came to know the orgins of many things, and the interdependancy of everything. I was completely transformed mind, body, and soul.

Since then life and mind has been a constant transition.

I had began to understand things before then, things about void and light, and I have met others who have, but it was the awakening that freed me from bondage and delusion, I was under. Through out the transition I have realizations, mini "awakenings", to the point that it hardly seems an event anymore, and all of it has been apart of the one transition which is the path.

What started as visions of void and undulating, expanding points of light for me over (10 years ago) before my awakening has elaborated into an understanding of mind, universe, spirit, and reality that has become basicly an alternate body of knowledge that explains the orgins and way of the universe, spirit and mind. I sometimes feel as though I had a belief system implanted and it has elaborated and colonized my mind. It is my reference point for everything

That sounds very interesting. I grew up with a lack of identity or mature examples, so I always seek to fit in and always sought new toy after new toy. I can see how this monetary system would prefer this, because it gives them a sense of control over us, where we lack identity. They come and fill it with newest hip thing available for you to buy over and over again.

I think this void that has to constantly fill up is really caused by a lack in identity which becomes apearant with his/her relationships. How do you guys think about that?

I think there is a real lack of identity in this socirty and that people seek to define them selves thru materielism for sure. That definitely happens with children nowadays identifying with toys and characters as though they are the people influencing their development, because as you point out, a lot of people dont have a people and that confounds a child as to who they are.

My experience was awakening. I woke up to a deeper reality and saw myself as a superficial by product of the conventionally believed and experienced reality. All the titles I gave mysef were false and role playing. All my habbits and beliefs were picked up and taught. All my preferences were exploitations of natural tendencies. Et cetra et cetra...

 

Could you explain in greater detail what that means and what you are telling the group?

 

Thanks.

I could try.

I say "awakened", because to me enlightenment is something seekers strive for. Where as awakening, for me, is a more suitable term because the experience was much more organic and unexpected.

I had had a copy of the Tao te ching and read a little about modern occidental philosophy. I had insights and assimilated deep concepts. I was intellegent and could sound philosophicly adept or so people told me. I was 25 years old or something and considered my self a spiritual person yet was not on any path. I still had the christian imprint and belief in God, and was very much a product of the world around me despite my interest.

I got married and had a child and these roles started erupting in me, all the preconditioning that was done with my participation from the day I was born on rose as a dominating consciousness. The father and husband I had assimilated in my life germinated when the conditions were right. During all that time was emotionally rough for me, I was at a real low point and and had become a slave to emotion. I started to realise that things triggered consciousness and that consciousness controled thought and emotion. I started to realize also that there seemed to be a cosmic order, a way to everything in the universe.

Also going on at the same time I had been fighting off a certain realization that was at conflict with the christian imprint within me (which was the core of my universal view)and at some point I couldn't fight it any more...all around the same time period I was realizing things and also at the same time the infrastructure of my ruling consciousness collapsed and I woke up.

The sustained and believed reality around us is a myth, our opinions and beliefs about ourselves and those around us are myth. The world is in a prison of its own delusion and it is the belief in that delusion that is perpetuating us to our demise and the right action to take is renunciation and to disrobe from your cutural clothing which ever culture that is and to become the person you were born as.

It seems that to become "enlightened" you must first "wake up" and then begins the task of clearing out the mess by letting go and not holding on. It is a process which leads to clarity, contment, nonattatchment and compassion.

edit-gowing up in any known society, we both block certain capacities and potentiels we are born with so they never seem to arise, artistic abilities, psychic sensitivities, emotional sensitivities, all sorts of stuff that we block out in order to fit in and function in society. We also take on things that very much are not us. WHen one awakes the blocks begin to go, with your help, and the aquired falseness begins to fall, with your help and realization.

We also take on all sorts of beliefs that cause us to not see certain things, to not understand things. The conditioned percieving mind will remain blind and in ignorance in order that its held beliefs do not get challenged because the beliefs are at the core of our identities. Our Identities and egos will fight to stay alive at your universal selfs expense. It is like the beliefs are parasites that feed of of us and they dont want us to see the truth or know ourselves. Waking up is the begining of the end of all that, it is to be reborn in ways.

I don't think it is tricky, but impossible. Anything you can say that enlightenement is, is not what it is. It is an interpretation of what it is, either your own or of another person, or religion, or tradition, etc...

 

It can be pointed at, and some pointers are more prominent, but it still is not it.

 

Once you begin to have objective experiences of the heart-center, you may better understand what I mean.

yet it is a realative term, and is subject to what you were, and to the comparable people around you.

 

Enlightenment to some people, is not enlightenmnet to others.

If you were thinking less of your own definitions and listening to the sentiment in the op, then you might see how what you took out of context from my post was merely an irrelevent clich'e that meanns, it cant be defined and you must first decide at what level you are pointing to or at.

I've found that what somepeople consider to be enlightened are mere fixations on things that for me were just passing thoughts.

Peace-

Can not one learn from experience, selfless love for a person, and then grow to selfless love for All people?

 

Selfless love is the key.

 

Not exactly. The buddha described a mans love for his family as a "thraller of hearts" a thraller is a prison keeper. This is the darkness of enlightenment.

Is it better to be attached to love or hate? They are the same attatchment, which ever one leads you to wanting niether and walking with Tao is the better for you, likey niether one will let go of you though.

Love for your children is attatchment to a cultural role. Thinking you are a bachelor with no children is a cultural role. There are matriarchal cultures where the sperm doner father has no emphesisis placed on his relation from the offspring of his love affair with their mother.

The truth is all children ar your responsibility and none of them are your obligation.

Even in partnerships of dual cultivation, they are attached to their partnership...Iron sharpens iron, but it is attatchment that holds them togeather and in reality, each is only cultivating themselves and each is working for their own enlightenment. And if they were to achieve it, they would have to do so on their own.

The more your eyes open and the closer you get to yourselfless self with Tao, the less and less personaly involved you will get to any one individual. The less and less personal interest you will show to any one or two people. The less and less possable it will be for you to get caught up in the highs lows concerns and feelings of a relationship you will want.

Your mind and perceptiona and inclinations will have become so different that you will be unable perform any typical cultural roles, fuunctions or rituals. The closer you get to Tao, the more and more delusional others will seem and all the more important it will feel to spread the truth so you can speak to others...You will try to wake them from there dellusionment.

Once your love of humanity has brought you to the point that you realise that you CAN NOT wake another from their delusionment you will be saddened and your love for humanity will turnm to utter compassion for the delusional...You will not fall in love with one of them even if it simply because of the thick of dillusion the whole world you will realize that your love for individuals was egotistical fascination and was dependent and conditional.

Love is attatchment...

This was posted in another thread and I felt that it didn't really go along with that thread's purpose, so I chose to create a new thread for those who might wish to discuss this topic.

 

Recently I have had a few experiences that have shaken my understanding of the world, the "void", heartmind, and enlightenment. For that matter it has shaken my understanding of compassion and other things as well, however this thread isn't so much about that, but rather I use this as an example of how it might be useful to shake off old beliefs to gain a greater awareness of what is and isn't.

 

The common consensus of most people is that in order to gain an awareness of the "truth" one must be taught or guided. (Please keep in mind that I use the word truth only so that we can understand the premise of my comments within a certain context.) I do not agree with this entirely, but in all honesty I cannot discount that certain ideas led me to a greater experience, but I also must say with honesty that only after I gave up those beliefs was I able to achieve an even greater degree of awareness, one that called into question and discounted many of the "truths" I held.

 

From my experience what I can say without doubt is that every man and woman, regardless of who they are or where they come from, has the ability to achieve this awareness, that it requires no guidance, but in some instances may require prompting, simply because many of us are led to believe that something other than, or more, doesn't exist, and rather what is true and real is what we've been taught to believe is true and real.

 

I also have come to understand that religions, regardless of the religion, are intricately linked to morality and in most cases a selfish desire for enlightenment in order to gain something that one believes will grant them some escape from death or suffering in this life. I can say from my own experience that neither of these is true in the context that people wish to believe it to be, but rather there is more to it than simply that. Part of my greater understanding stems from understanding the true nature of me as I've been taught to view me, and also what I was before I was born and still am. When one sees who they were from the beginning then the desire to continue to be the person they are fades away, because they understand the transient nature of this being they have become.

 

Anyone who sets forth and simply meditates, not on themselves, or truth, but simply sits and stills the mind will come to this revelation. I have no doubts of this. The problem is that we are tricked into believing that things require purpose, when in fact, in this case, purpose is the greatest hindrance. One can only achieve a greater degree of awareness when they understand that there is no purpose for it, that this state is already within them and exists, they only need to be made aware of it.

 

With that said, I know of nothing else to say, so I will leave it at that. I hope that this discussion will bear fruit. Be kind to others or bare your fangs, it doesn't matter, nor will it change what is, so please feel free to discuss this as you choose to.

 

Aaron

 

P.S. I will only say I'm enlightened if you say I'm not. <insert smiley face>

Enlightenment is a tricky thing to define. I'd say what it boils down to is loss of cultural imprints, yet it is a realative term, and is subject to what you were, and to the comparable people around you.

It is not about learning anything or obtaining a belief...

Do we need a guide to reach total enlightenment. I don't think there is anyone qualified to tell us that but I would suspect that the answer is yes and no.

To rely entirely on ones self would be egotistical, you do need to look beyond your self. You can look to anyone or anything to observe the Tao in manifestation and in it's way, but don't look to anyone for the answer.

My experience was awakening. I woke up to a deeper reality and saw myself as a superficial by product of the conventionally believed and experienced reality. All the titles I gave mysef were false and role playing. All my habbits and beliefs were picked up and taught. All my preferences were exploitations of natural tendencies. Et cetra et cetra...

So as some freedom was going on psychologicly, moraly, and ethicly there is still the habitual nature of my cultural ghost, language, posture, social skills...I have spent years working with the falling away and sluffing off of engrained beliefs by living a life of sincere devotion to removing the subjectivity from my life and perception.

There are areas in my life that I feel I need help in, and even a little guidance, but my mind is on the "goal" so I need no guides. I feel that for myself it would be good to join into group meditations for the guidance and fortification. I feel like I could use guidance in areas of physical cultivation, and physycal practices, yet I am on the path and no one is leading me through it.

I think even using psychedelic drugs can be looking for guidance, but to consider it a guide to enlightement would be foolish. Just a little guidance along the way to enlightenment.

Not to negat the original post, but to add, I think an aspect of meterielism as it pertains to this thread is status. Even as children, growing up in a highly materiel world, where consumerism is the means of sustenance (economy)toys and other materiel things are amusing on a level but is also about fitting in, and exactly where you fit in.

Toys on an objective level breed materielism. Dolls and games at some level are good tools for the mind and immagination.I think what the tao in kids wants though is not toys but tools, and that would be a healthy alternative.

When I was doing a lot of work on a place me and my son were staying, he naturaly wanted a hammer and a saw. I went to the store looking for a play toolset, and realized all this plastic garbage was just an image, and it wouldn't hold his real attraction too long.

I could try to introduce the garbage to him as "here's ahammer for you, just like daddy's..." but that would be untrue, and it would force him to imagine that it was a hammer and since that is why he would've got bored. To keep doing that excersise with the toys is to breed consumptive materielism. I ended up going to the hardware section and chose a small finishing hammer. He could drive a nail by the time he was two. He would line them up along a board, setting them up in the tiny cracks, then he would drive the nails all the way down.

Toys in excess bores the imagination. In our society where we constantly buy and replace the disposable product, or to replace the last hyped up item for the next one, toys, and the contemporary childs relationship to them is breeding a highly attatched form of disatatchment. A type of disattatchment that is purely ritualistic, and requires a materiel object to let go of and be forgotten, but only for the next most important materiel object that the child only wants because everyone in his collective does or would want.

It is more of a cultural attatchment to having toys that makes kids want them. They are also specificly designed to look attractive to a child, and in a culture where buying and status through materiel possesions is expressed, having the next new transformer is very important.

Status is real for kids. I remember the first few days of kindergarten. I went to school in sandals and when I got there I could feel it big time...no one had said anything at all but I felt sort of anxiety and shame for wearing those sandals, and eventualy at recess or something I was catching flack for the leather sandals and blue socks.

On an organic level, a few dolls and items for kids to use to define the culture to themselves, and a few key tools that are kid sized and actually work are all a kid needs to learn alot and keep them selves fully active in imaginationa and actual creativity, but it is definitely not the culture.

There is an island culture that allows the kids to have an organic unrestricted relationship with there most important tool which is the machette. Children are allowed to handle them and drag them around, no body freaks out. As soon as the child wants to and has the dextaerity they start there relationships with the machette. By the time they are 3 and four, groups of kids will be sitting around a log whapping away at it in a spectacle that would make anyone outside the culture cringe, yet oddly noone has ever really been hurt. They learn by watching the adults and grow up being experts with all the tools their cultures use.

Cool, seems very Taoist. You're writing about God,gods and origins. How real are they to you? To what, if any extent do you see things that others miss?

I believe what I wrote is "real" in as much as it is an illustration to describe the Tao of creation, and to illustrate certain concepts and principles at work.

I believe that pretty much all religions and concepts about God and gods are derived from the Tao of creation in an attempt to thingafy the un-thingable.

Trying to name the eternal and unnamable, trying to asign attributes to certain aspects of Tao is the orgins of the percieved gods and religions that are dependent on them.

All things are sentient, and all aspects of the Tao are manifistations of the Tao and have awareness, they exist within time and space where they are percieved, and also exist in the realm of no-form/pure-awareness(spirit) in an infintesimal point.

Some examples of people trying to define and linearize the Tao of creation are here

here-dyzan

here-genesis

Even concepts of angels rebeling in heaven are derived, yet contrived, from the Tao of creation.

Here is something I wrote elsewhere to describe what I believe about God and Satan-

The collective consciousness of humanity, trancedentaly, in past and present has an ego comprised coleectively from all egos both past and present. Consciousness extends from present into past and into future, but ego only exist in the present and the past.

 

Every aspect of reality that is percievable and percieved has awareness and that awareness has spirit. That spirit exist in the dimensional reality it was percieved in, and also in the reality of no-space/time, pure spirit, where all things exist in an infintesimal point. Even a perception a person has, has awareness and spirit.

 

All forces and influence in and around us have an aware spirit; the spirit that influences control over us, is a god, a-demi-god. Ego, self image, words, and concepts are and can be gods.

 

The creator is a god. Karma, order, balance and judgement are aware spirits, and are gods. There is as many spirits and gods as there are laws of nature, at least one for each, and much more.

 

The creator has a pseudo-ego; by percieving order out of in finite chaos, and actualizing it the perception gained a pseudo-egotistical disposition. Yet, because it is a non-relative disposition and there is no ego in relation to it, it is a pseudo-ego, unsubstantiated except by creation.

 

Although it is a pseudo-ego, it is fundamentaly similar enough, that because of the laws of congregation, the attraction of likeness, and the law of conflation of awareness-and also that in the eternal realms of spirit there is niether time nor space, pure spirit, the collective ego of humanities spirit is both fused, and one with the the "ego" of the creator.

 

The spirit of ego now believs it is the God and creator of the universe.

 

I will add that the inevidable development of the ego in humanity, and the consequent conforming of thoughts and thinking faculties, tendancies, and emotions (all of which have awreness and spirit), and the coresponding changing in our collective expression is where both the fall of man stories and the rebellion of the angels stories conform to this belief.

 

 

To what, if any extent do you see things that others miss?

That is not up to me to say.

It is hard to describe what I see becauuse it all has its roots in the formless...I suppose that is what this thread was, an attemt to describe the action and activity of non-existance, the orgins of yin and yang, and how the interplay of yin and yang is a matrix of spirit and awrness's...it is impossable but I'm getting better at it.

I have been witnessing the tao of creation and humanity in an ever elaborating form since my youth. It started out as just seeing visions of void and simultaneously gaining an understanding of it as it is and its role in creation. Through the years it has elaborated I started to see the female, the male and their interplay and understanding how why and what was going on...through the years it has elaborated. Over time I sopped believing in God and came to understand the "gods".

I dont know if that answers your question?

Cool, seems very Taoist. You're writing about God,gods and origins. How real are they to you? To what, if any extent do you see things that others miss?

I believe what I wrote is "real" in as much as it is an illustration to describe the Tao of creation, and to illustrate certain concepts and principles at work.

I believe that pretty much all religions and concepts about God and gods are derived from the Tao of creation in an attempt to thingafy the un-thingable.

Trying to name the eternal and unnamable, trying to asign attributes to certain aspects of Tao is the orgins of the percieved gods and religions that are dependent on them.

All things are sentient, and all aspects of the Tao are manifistations of the Tao and have awareness, they exist within time and space where they are percieved, and also exist in the realm of no-form/pure-awareness(spirit) in an infintesimal point.

Some examples of people trying to define and linearize the Tao of creation are here

here-dyzan

here-genesis

Even concepts of angels rebeling in heaven are derived, yet contrived, from the Tao of creation.

Here is something I wrote elsewhere to describe what I believe about God and Satan-

The collective consciousness of humanity, trancedentaly, in past and present has an ego comprised coleectively from all egos both past and present. Consciousness extends from present into past and into future, but ego only exist in the present and the past.

 

Every aspect of reality that is percievable and percieved has awareness and that awareness has spirit. That spirit exist in the dimensional reality it was percieved in, and also in the reality of no-space/time, pure spirit, where all things exist in an infintesimal point. Even a perception a person has, has awareness and spirit.

 

All forces and influence in and around us have an aware spirit; the spirit that influences control over us, is a god, a-demi-god. Ego, self image, words, and concepts are and can be gods.

 

The creator is a god. Karma, order, balance and judgement are aware spirits, and are gods. There is as many spirits and gods as there are laws of nature, at least one for each, and much more.

 

The creator has a pseudo-ego; by percieving order out of in finite chaos, and actualizing it the perception gained a pseudo-egotistical disposition. Yet, because it is a non-relative disposition and there is no ego in relation to it, it is a pseudo-ego, unsubstantiated except by creation.

 

Although it is a pseudo-ego, it is fundamentaly similar enough, that because of the laws of congregation, the attraction of likeness, and the law of conflation of awareness-and also that in the eternal realms of spirit there is niether time nor space, pure spirit, the collective ego of humanities spirit is both fused, and one with the the "ego" of the creator.

 

The spirit of ego now believs it is the God and creator of the universe.

 

I will add that the inevidable development of the ego in humanity, and the consequent conforming of thoughts and thinking faculties, tendancies, and emotions (all of which have awreness and spirit), and the coresponding changing in our collective expression is where both the fall of man stories and the rebellion of the angels stories conform to this belief.

 

 

To what, if any extent do you see things that others miss?

That is not up to me to say.

It is hard to describe what I see becauuse it all has its roots in the formless...I suppose that is what this thread was, an attemt to describe the action and activity of non-existance, the orgins of yin and yang, and how the interplay of yin and yang is a matrix of spirit and awrness's...it is impossable but I'm getting better at it.

I have been witnessing the tao of creation and humanity in an ever elaborating form since my youth. It started out as just seeing visions of void and simultaneously gaining an understanding of it as it is and its role in creation. Through the years it has elaborated I started to see the female, the male and their interplay and understanding how why and what was going on...through the years it has elaborated. Over time I sopped believing in God and came to understand the "gods".

I dont know if that answers your question?

This capter, like chapter 64, is another statement about the symmetry between action in activity. That all the journey of a 1,000 steps is, in essense, put into the iniation of the activity and the rest of the journey is effortless when the initiative to finish it is taken in the first few steps. The rest just naturally unfolds and bares the imprint of the preparedness taken in the original action.

 

Once you get out of bed and put water on yourface, the day takes care of itself.

I wanted to add to the previous post. I think that what could be said about chapter 64 could be said about 63, and vice versa.

Another example of symmetry within action and activity is spontaneous expression in art. I think that it is the general idea with abstract expressionalism and Zen art techniques.

And it would also apply to what Jesus says about "from the bottom of a mans heart his mouth speaks". It is alot like certain zen philosophies about spontaneous actions being a representation of the contents of a persons heart/mind.

The tao is the heart and core of every thing...

This passage is like a song of praise to the unpredjudiced nature of the tao. Like the tao, the sage is a refuge to the wicked, he gives aide to all that come to him. The tao has no predjudiced, it offers as a gift to kings what it offers to the wicked.

edit-the first line, gives praise to Tao nature as the source of all things, then goes on to illustrate how it does not show preference in who or what it gives life to, it is like mother, father and friend to all of its manifestations. So it is a praise of unprejudiced benevolence, to live up to it is to be humble and unbiased.

This capter, like chapter 64, is another statement about the symmetry between action in activity. That all the journey of a 1,000 steps is, in essense, put into the iniation of the activity and the rest of the journey is effortless when the initiative to finish it is taken in the first few steps. The rest just naturally unfolds and bares the imprint of the preparedness taken in the original action.

Once you get out of bed and put water on yourface, the day takes care of itself.