The Nature of Enlightenment

[Birch]

[Encephalon]

moved to a separate post

Edited May 12, 2011 by Blasto

[gendao]

[Aaron]

Your statements have a lot of misunderstanding. It is totally possible and I am speaking from experience... to permanently end the illusion of self.

 

Yes, you are right in that through the power of concentration and absorption, you may temporarily send the sense of self into abeyance, in a state of samadhi.

 

But samadhi is NOT enlightenment.

 

Enlightenment is a permanent realization about the nature of reality - in the seeing there is just the seen, no seer, in the hearing there is just the heard, no hearer, in the thinking there is just thoughts, no thinker.

 

Having direct realization of this ends the illusion of self forever. This is not an experience that has entry and exit - you do not enter this, and you can never exit/escape this 'condition' - because always already, there is no self, so there is no self to remain, no self to cease, no self to [insert token].

 

This needs to be realized.

 

So yes, there is no 'permanently annihilating self', since annihilating self implies there is a self, but if you realize no self, then it is seen that there is no such self to remain or cease... the illusion is seen through and what is seen cannot be unseen.

 

This is vastly different from a temporary samadhi state. A samadhi state does not bring realization.

"Life is suffering" is one of the most misquoted thing attributed to Buddha. The Buddha did not say this. He taught that there is suffering, he didn't say life is suffering or there can only be suffering.

 

Please read this article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html

 

...You've probably heard the rumor that "Life is suffering" is Buddhism's first principle, the Buddha's first noble truth. It's a rumor with good credentials, spread by well-respected academics and Dharma teachers alike, but a rumor nonetheless. The truth about the noble truths is far more interesting. The Buddha taught four truths — not one — about life: There is suffering, there is a cause for suffering, there is an end of suffering, and there is a path of practice that puts an end to suffering. These truths, taken as a whole, are far from pessimistic. They're a practical, problem-solving approach — the way a doctor approaches an illness, or a mechanic a faulty engine. You identify a problem and look for its cause. You then put an end to the problem by eliminating the cause...

 

...Other discourses show that the problem isn't with body and feelings in and of themselves. They themselves aren't suffering. The suffering lies in clinging to them. In his definition of the first noble truth, the Buddha summarizes all types of suffering under the phrase, "the five aggregates of clinging": clinging to physical form (including the body), feelings, perceptions, thought constructs, and consciousness. However, when the five aggregates are free from clinging, he tells us, they lead to long-term benefit and happiness.

 

So the first noble truth, simply put, is that clinging is suffering. It's because of clinging that physical pain becomes mental pain. It's because of clinging that aging, illness, and death cause mental distress. The paradox here is that, in clinging to things, we don't trap them or get them under our control. Instead, we trap ourselves. When we realize our captivity, we naturally search for a way out. And this is where it's so important that the first noble truth not say that "Life is suffering." If life were suffering, where would we look for an end to suffering? We'd be left with nothing but death and annihilation. But when the actual truth is that clinging is suffering, we simply have to look for the clinging and eliminate its causes...

This isn't true, suffering does not require pleasure. Also, suffering is not displeasure. Unpleasurable sensations can arise yet without mental aversion or suffering.

The world is not an illusion, and there is no reality apart from the world. But this not to say that the world is real (inherently, independently, permanently existing) - there is no independent existence of the world of its own as all appearances dependently originate without anything that can be pinned down as having inherent reality.

 

The world is like an illusion, but not an illusion, looks there but isn't really there.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya%20Mahayogi%20Shridhar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.

 

 

Hello Xabir,

 

Thank you for your insightful post. I would rather have heard how you came about reaching enlightenment, but to each his own.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I think one of the things that turns me off personally about Buddhism, is the absolutism involved in it. There is no room for others thoughts or ideas, rather it seems that it is always presented as the absolute truth. I don't want to debate this here, because the intent of this thread is to talk about our own personal experiences regarding enlightenment, what occurred and what happened and more importantly to be tolerant of those other experiences, not judging them, but listening to what others have shared and sharing our own experiences. I tried to express that in my original post, but apparently some people have missed that idea.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Twinner

[Encephalon]

Hello Xabir,

 

Thank you for your insightful post. I would rather have heard how you came about reaching enlightenment, but to each his own.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I think one of the things that turns me off personally about Buddhism, is the absolutism involved in it. There is no room for others thoughts or ideas, rather it seems that it is always presented as the absolute truth. I don't want to debate this here, because the intent of this thread is to talk about our own personal experiences regarding enlightenment, what occurred and what happened and more importantly to be tolerant of those other experiences, not judging them, but listening to what others have shared and sharing our own experiences. I tried to express that in my original post, but apparently some people have missed that idea.

 

There is absolutism in every religious tradition, which is often more the product of absolutist practitioners than the doctrines themselves, as original teachings tend to accrete corrupted interpretations as the years and centuries tick by. I would have to agree with the likes of Sam Harris (The End of Faith) that the Abrahamic Traditions are far more prone to this than the wisdom traditions of east simply because of the nature of top-down authoritarian belief structures.

 

Having said that, it's remarkable that the least absolutist religion, Buddhism (and there is lively debate about whether it is by definition a religion) is consistently held up in this forum as absolutist. If you've read even a fraction of the feedback you've been getting in response to your posts you should have gathered by now that the original teachings of the buddha were not metaphysical claims or commandments from Above; they were psychological tools for investigating inner experience and ending suffering. I don't understand why this simple point continues to be shrouded in mystery.

 

There is ample evidence that original Buddhism was agnostic, humanistic, rational insofar as it did result in a common experience amongst the practitioners, and was not charitable to the Hindu metaphysical orthodoxy, or any orthodoxy, of its day. we are in the midst of a prolific academic study of buddhism and its remarkable consistency with postmodernism, modern psychology, and neuroscience. Einstein was totally on board. The literature is vast. There may come a point where the weight of evidence demonstrates that Buddhism, at least its agnostic stripe, is extremely relevent to modern crises above and beyond what other traditions offer from their Iron Age perspective. But yes, you will find an almost barbaric form of Buddhist metaphysics in here that will leave a stain on your computer table.

 

It's just a possibility here, not an absolute, that your phenomenological investigation into your subjective experiences may be leaving you wide open for precisely the kind of feedback you don't want. Maybe the experiment in comparative radical subjectivity has run its course and we now have to mop up the floors, tie up some loose ends, and get down to some essential facts. Coming to terms with a dysfunctional religious upbringing is an essential step for many of us, but sooner or later a critical evaluation of the world's traditions will yield a lot of clarity.

[xabir2005]

Can you explain how this "clinging" comes about if there is technically nothing/no-one to cling to?

Even though there is technically nothing and no one to cling to, ignorance conjures something and someone. With the ignorance as condition, with pleasurable and displeasurable sensations as condition, with craving as condition, clinging arises.

 

Not comprehending the insubstantiality of perceptions, we cling to pleasurable sensations and experience aversion to unpleasurable sensations. Not comprehending arising and passing, we cling to things as permanent. Not comprehending no-self, we cling to 'I' and 'mine'.

 

Without these delusions, everything self-liberates.

 

Since everything arises via dependent origination, no agent exists to cling, to crave. Clinging arises, no actual clinger, craving arises, no actual craver, yet clinging and craving arises dependent on ignorance, the sense or illusion of self.

 

That is why realization and insight is important... all clingings, cravings, and passionate feelings(fear, anger, etc) are intrinsically related to the sense of self/Self.

Edited May 12, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Hello Xabir,

 

Thank you for your insightful post. I would rather have heard how you came about reaching enlightenment, but to each his own.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I think one of the things that turns me off personally about Buddhism, is the absolutism involved in it. There is no room for others thoughts or ideas, rather it seems that it is always presented as the absolute truth. I don't want to debate this here, because the intent of this thread is to talk about our own personal experiences regarding enlightenment, what occurred and what happened and more importantly to be tolerant of those other experiences, not judging them, but listening to what others have shared and sharing our own experiences. I tried to express that in my original post, but apparently some people have missed that idea.

The process started a year ago. Through contemplating the question 'Before birth, Who am I?' for almost two years with a deep desire to resolve the matter of the truth of my Being, there suddenly arose the insight into the essence of existence, being, presence. This is a direct insight into something undeniable and unavoidable. For the first time I realized what presence, luminosity, awareness actually is, directly and non-conceptually without intermediary. And I realize that to be my very essence, in which there is no division between 'me' and 'it' - I am That, the self-knowing presence. It is so clear and undoubtable that there arose a certainty of Being, something more undeniable and intimate than the breath, and if anything it is the only 'thing' that cannot be denied.

 

At this phase, the construct of duality and the construct of inherency still remains strong. As such, I see 1) an inherent awareness 2) awareness is the ultimate observer of objects, and I am that all-pervading awareness, I am not the objects - the objects are objects happening to/in awareness, and awareness is like a vast container for them to arise and subside.

 

This phase continued for the next six months where I deepened the insight and experience of I AMness in terms of the insight and experience of impersonality, where everything is seen to be the spontaneous manifestation and doings of an impersonal source. It feels like I am being lived by a higher power. Due to the experience of impersonality, there is the impression that consciousness is universal and everyone comes from the same source. There is also the refining of that insight and experience in terms of the intensity of luminosity, seeing through and dissolving the need to abide, and effortlessness. So these four aspects are the 'refining factors of the realization of I AM' and is what eventually led to further non-dual insights. That said, in the I AM realization phase, due to the lack of insights, I was skewed into trying to abide more and more as the I AM and trying to make this abidance constant.

 

In August, while dancing in a nightclub and just immersing myself into the movement, the music, and sensuousness of everything, I experienced non-duality very intensely and effortlessly as the sense of self just dropped off. Although I have had non-dual glimpses (lasting only a few moments usually), this was different as it became very effortless and constant. Everything was very intense, blissful, and luminously present - and it was not because of alcohol or mind-altering drugs... the subsidance of the sense of dualistic construct is very blissful, and this bliss and clarity did not just stop - it became a perpetual experience in daily life. Now, Awareness is seen to be seamless by nature. I no longer see and experience Presence and Awareness as a formless background to everything. In fact, it is seen that there is no division between the observer and the observed - I am the seeing, the hearing, the smelling, the tasting, the touching, everything arising moment to moment, there is no separate self or experiencer, there is only that - and that is non-dual presence. However, the construct of an inherent awareness is still strong, and as such, I see 1) an inherent awareness 2) awareness is not divided with all manifestations. In other words, I see everything as the manifestation of the same aliveness/awareness, and Awareness is seen as a seamless undivided field of being in which everything is equally an expression of, and not other than, this field of aliveness/awareness/consciousness. As such, the purpose of practice is no longer geared towards achieving a constant, 24/7 abidance in the purest state of Presence, the Self. Rather, seamless and effortlessness is discovered to be totally non-dual and seamless with/AS all manifestations, rather than abiding in a purest formless Presence. At this point, I keep questioning myself, "Where does awareness end and manifestation begin?" and the answer to this is a non-conceptual, borderless, centreless, seamless field of undivided presence in which everything is included AS non-dual presence.

 

In October upon the contemplation of Bahiya Sutta while I was marching (was enlisted last year for a mandatory two year military service), I realized Anatta. The contemplation of 'in the seeing just the seen, in the hearing just the heard' as Buddha instructed Bahiya triggered that realization. As such, I no longer see an agent that perceives, i.e. an Awareness. I realized that there is no agent that perceives at all, no subject to be found. In seeing, there is only just the seen, the scenery - the seeing IS the seen, the seeing IS the scenery. There is just scenery - and that alone is the seeing. There is no seer, no agent, no perceiver behind perception. Only always just perception without perceiver. Everything is just happening. There is no "seamless field of aliveness" because aliveness is simply these everchanging and ungraspable sensations arising and subsiding each moment. Just thoughts, sensations, sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, that's all. Phenomena manifesting. The entire process itself rolls and knows, there is no knower. There is no Awareness that is one with its perceptions. There is just perception, the perception itself is its knowing. Because there is always only arising phenomena, there is no such thing as 'unicity'. There is no awareness to be united with objects, no mirror that is one with its reflections. There is no subject to begin with that could be inseparable with its objects. There is always only phenomena.

 

Few months later, I began to notice this subtle remaining tendency to cling to a Here and Now. Somehow, I still want to return to a Here, a Now, which I found to be a subtle illusory yet hypnotic conceptual image that represents 'Presence'. In reality, Presence is empty and non-local. It cannot be located, it cannot be found, it cannot be pinned pointed even as 'here' or 'now'. It cannot be grasped in any way, because there is no core or essence to Awareness. There is always only dependently originated appearances, that alone is Presence, and that is unlocatable, ungraspable, unfindable in any way whatsoever. Therefore we must not only dissolve the construct of "Who", even the more subtle construct of a "Where" and "When" must be dissolved for true liberation. When this is seen, the subtle tendency to seek an inherent source/awareness/presence is then allowed to be dropped, and in place of that seeking tendency is the effortless and natural spontaneous manifestation of interdepedent origination.

 

Soon afterwards, there is the realization that what there is, is unsupported, disjoint thoughts and phenomena... There is only the ungraspable experiencing of everything, which is bubble like. Everything just pops in and out. It's like a stream... cannot be grasped or pinned down... like a dream, yet totally vivid. Cannot be located as here or there.

 

Prior to this insight, there isn't the insight into phenomena as being 'scattered' without a linking basis (well there already was but it needs refinement)... the moment you say there is a Mind, an Awareness, a Presence that is constant throughout all experiences, that pervades and arise as all appearances, you have failed to see the 'no-linking', 'disjointed', 'unsupported' nature of manifestation.

 

The luminosity and the emptiness are inseparable. They are both essential aspects of our experiential reality and must be seen in its seamlessness and unity. Realizing this, there is just disjoint thoughts and phenomena arising without support and liberating on its own accord. There is nothing solid acting as the basis of these experiences and linking them... there is just spontaneous and unsupported manifestations and self liberating experiences.

 

Therefore, this ‘disjoint, unsupported, bubble-like, non-solid, spontaneous, self-releasing’ nature of activities is revealed as a further progression from the initial insight into Anatta which is still skewed towards non-dual luminosity and being grounded in the ‘Here/Now’.

 

So... that's the story so far anyway. I claim no finality, and in fact, am pretty sure more insights are going to unfold in time to come. And since I see reality as a process, I do not make neo-Advaitic claims like 'oh the time bound story is just relative stuff and actually all there is is Here/Now' - there is no inherently existing 'Here/Now' at all, there is just phenomena rolling on its own accord and telling its story but without a self at the center claiming ownership of the process (and yet using personal pronouns is unavoidable for convenient communication - I don't want to sound like a weirdo for using impersonal pronouns) And yet since reality/phenomena is as ungraspable as lightning strikes, no phenomena including enlightenment could be captured or clung to. So I always refer back to what Zen Master Dogen wrote:

 

To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever.

 

Lastly, I see enlightenment as nothing mystical. It is simply the lifting of veils to reveal subtler aspects of reality. Once we lift conceptual thoughts, we discover I AM. Once we lift the bond of duality, we experience and discover non-dual awareness. Once we lift the bond of inherency, we experience and discover the absence of agent and an wonderfully luminous yet empty universe occuring via dependent origination.

 

This is it... in short. For a much longer e-journal/e-book you can see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

 

And for a much shorter version of a path quite similar to mine (by Thusness who I consider one of my teachers): http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

Edited May 12, 2011 by xabir2005

[manitou]

What are the 3 treasures of the sage?

 

1. Love - I see this as immersion in everything in life, the seemingly good and the seemingly bad. To love another as himself.

 

2. Never too much - this goes directly to balance; to find the middle way.

 

3. Never be the first - I really like this one because it seems to go directly to ego. It's quite helpful to think 'never be the first' when driving in traffic; or it can go to subjugating our ego in all matters.

 

But as I said on another thread, I think enlightment also means to be 'enlightened' of religious structure and enlightened of judgments. It does also seem that the enlightened ones do have access to a channel of sorts because of the clearing out of their own distortions of thought.

Edited May 12, 2011 by manitou

[gendao]

[Aaron]

Hello Xabir,

 

I'm not just saying this, but I actually do understand what you've said, at least when you describe the experience. I was describing very much the same thing, the only difference is that we've come to different realizations regarding the cause, or no-cause. This is why I have been pressing for a description of the experience, rather than the logical and intellectual realization. I think, very much, that the former is impossible to explain, and that the latter tries very hard to rationalize, thus comes the intellect attempting to come to terms with something that is beyond man's capacity to truly rationalize.

 

I will admit that my explanations do not do the experience justice, but I will also admit that my final understanding of the experience did not match your own. I still think this has a lot to do with our practice, whether it is Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, or Christian, our final understanding is often tied to the explanation we've been given.

 

The Universe revolves around the sun. We know now that this isn't true, but at one time, because everyone was told that it was true, people just accepted it. When they made new discoveries in astronomy, they attributed it to this phenomena. It wasn't until Galileo came along and figured out the truth that we actually started to consider that this might not be true.

 

If we continue to accept and define our experiences, based on what we've been told to expect, then our minds will automatically try to attribute our experience to those expectations.

 

I really enjoyed your explanation. Thank you for sharing it. No, I will probably not read anything more about Buddhism. I really don't want to pollute my experience with other philosophies if I don't have to. If it works for you, all the more power to you. I would just kindly remind you that knowing the truth, doesn't mean you have to press that truth on others. It's okay to allow people to believe they know something and there's absolutely no need to prove them wrong.

 

Aaron

[xabir2005]

Hello Xabir,

 

I'm not just saying this, but I actually do understand what you've said, at least when you describe the experience. I was describing very much the same thing, the only difference is that we've come to different realizations regarding the cause, or no-cause. This is why I have been pressing for a description of the experience, rather than the logical and intellectual realization. I think, very much, that the former is impossible to explain, and that the latter tries very hard to rationalize, thus comes the intellect attempting to come to terms with something that is beyond man's capacity to truly rationalize.

 

I will admit that my explanations do not do the experience justice, but I will also admit that my final understanding of the experience did not match your own. I still think this has a lot to do with our practice, whether it is Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, or Christian, our final understanding is often tied to the explanation we've been given.

 

The Universe revolves around the sun. We know now that this isn't true, but at one time, because everyone was told that it was true, people just accepted it. When they made new discoveries in astronomy, they attributed it to this phenomena. It wasn't until Galileo came along and figured out the truth that we actually started to consider that this might not be true.

 

If we continue to accept and define our experiences, based on what we've been told to expect, then our minds will automatically try to attribute our experience to those expectations.

 

I really enjoyed your explanation. Thank you for sharing it. No, I will probably not read anything more about Buddhism. I really don't want to pollute my experience with other philosophies if I don't have to. If it works for you, all the more power to you. I would just kindly remind you that knowing the truth, doesn't mean you have to press that truth on others. It's okay to allow people to believe they know something and there's absolutely no need to prove them wrong.

 

Aaron

Hmm... I don't think I've spoken anything about Buddhism here.

 

That said, non-Buddhists have also seen through the illusion of self.

 

An example: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/18512-ruthless-truth/

 

It is about discovering a fact through your own investigation... it has nothing to do with conditioning.

Edited May 12, 2011 by xabir2005

[lifeforce]

The process started a year ago......

 

Wow. That was a very good post. Thank you.

My 'awakening' came about when I stopped seeking enlightenment (I never liked that word).

Years and years of seeking, searching, looking, meditating, reading countless religious books.

Then one day I had enough and just 'let go' of all that endless searching and something happened. Something 'clicked' into place.

 

I saw the beauty of a flower, I mean really saw it.

The sound of children playing.

Birdsong.

The feeling of rain as it hit my skin.

The smell of trees.

Thoughts arising and passing away.

The constant movement inside my body.

 

Everything was of Tao, and finally I became a part of it instead of being 'apart' from it. I embraced change rather than opposing it.

The constant flow of life.

No judgements.

No preferences.

No enlightenment.

Just things as they are.

[manitou]

Wow. That was a very good post. Thank you.

My 'awakening' came about when I stopped seeking enlightenment (I never liked that word).

Years and years of seeking, searching, looking, meditating, reading countless religious books.

Then one day I had enough and just 'let go' of all that endless searching and something happened. Something 'clicked' into place.

 

I saw the beauty of a flower, I mean really saw it.

The sound of children playing.

Birdsong.

The feeling of rain as it hit my skin.

The smell of trees.

Thoughts arising and passing away.

The constant movement inside my body.

 

Everything was of Tao, and finally I became a part of it instead of being 'apart' from it. I embraced change rather than opposing it.

The constant flow of life.

No judgements.

No preferences.

No enlightenment.

Just things as they are.

 

Very poetically put, and resonant for me.

 

some really great posts here, everyone.

[steve]

Thank you for an insightful post.

 

I don't really know anything about englightenment. What most realized humans say is that our "True Nature" is here, always. Problems start to arise for me when "I", that is Anders, think that this body and mind, that exists in time, need to do, understand or gain something to realize this. Anders does this all the time, out of habit. Mostly before I become aware of it.

 

Last year I went to Cervinia to ski. Its located at the foot of the Matterhorn. I've always wanted to see it; the ultimate mountain. The first couple of days, we were caught in a blizzard, and we were just stuck in this whiteout not seeing anything. Thing was, I felt that to really experience the mountain, I had to climb it, or ski it, be on it, to really experience it.

Thing was, the next morning, as I sat on the john, I saw out of the window, and there it was. Bright, shining, aweinspiring. I realized it had been there all the time. Even when I was not here.

As I walked over to the lifts with my skis in the morning sun, there was a lady in fir sitting on an outside cafe drinking coffee, looking at the same mountain. Its presence was there for her as it was for me. She had no less access to it than a climber that was approaching the summit. It was allready there.

 

You and I will never get enlightened. Its all about this painful project of resignation, or loss. Its not about an awakening. Its a wake up call.

 

Most people think that enlightenment is about knowing. I too unconsciously hope that Anders, the aspiring mystic, will finally, at some point in time "know" something.

But it does not work. The only thing we can do is give up. Stop. listen. Let whatever is come and annihilate you. Then there's an oppporunity to give in to this ongoing process of loss.

When Anders the extreme skier, climber and escapist mystic realized that he was not going to "become" part of any Matterhorn, in some primordial act of union, did he understand that Anders, did not really matter in this picture. Actually, he was just in the way, and he had to die. He could not climb it, ski it and come home to talk about it. Then he would have killed the Matterhorn, and it would have been lost forever in oblivion. Anders had to go home.

Only then could he slide around and appreciate it, just being there.

 

Saying this much is also saying too much. Just forget about it, and forget about enlightenment. Don't spoil the big joke.

 

h

I am glad that Anders, the aspiring mystic, still feels it is worthwhile to write from time to time

_/\_

 

I liken enlightenment to God occasionally peaking out at herself in the mirror and giggling.

It really has nothing to do with you and me and yet it is nothing more or less than you and me.

More importantly, I spent a beautiful day with my daughter today - coincidentally in the shadow of Ranier.

[xabir2005]

Wow. That was a very good post. Thank you.

My 'awakening' came about when I stopped seeking enlightenment (I never liked that word).

Years and years of seeking, searching, looking, meditating, reading countless religious books.

Then one day I had enough and just 'let go' of all that endless searching and something happened. Something 'clicked' into place.

 

I saw the beauty of a flower, I mean really saw it.

The sound of children playing.

Birdsong.

The feeling of rain as it hit my skin.

The smell of trees.

Thoughts arising and passing away.

The constant movement inside my body.

 

Everything was of Tao, and finally I became a part of it instead of being 'apart' from it. I embraced change rather than opposing it.

The constant flow of life.

No judgements.

No preferences.

No enlightenment.

Just things as they are.

Beautiful.

 

But is there even a 'you' that is apart from that in the first place?

 

Is there a 'you' that becomes a part of it?

 

Or is there always already just...

 

 

The sound of children playing.

Birdsong.

The feeling of rain as it hit the skin.

The smell of trees.

Thoughts arising and passing away.

The constant movement inside the body.

 

 

 

 

To have seamless and effortless experience, right view is important. If we do not completely replace the 'inherent and dualistic view', it will just pop up and disturb all the beautiful experiences you described.

 

My 2 cents

Edited May 13, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[hagar]

I am glad that Anders, the aspiring mystic, still feels it is worthwhile to write from time to time

_/\_

 

I liken enlightenment to God occasionally peaking out at herself in the mirror and giggling.

It really has nothing to do with you and me and yet it is nothing more or less than you and me.

More importantly, I spent a beautiful day with my daughter today - coincidentally in the shadow of Ranier.

 

=)

Sounds like a good day.

 

My master is in town for a weekend retreat. He told us that from his experience, there are holy mountains and there are mountains. Not all are the same. One can tell the difference, just by relating to them. So relatively speaking, there is difference in the way things manifest.

h

Edited May 13, 2011 by hagar

[manitou]

=)

Sounds like a good day.

 

My master is in town for a weekend retreat. He told us that from his experience, there are holy mountains and there are mountains. Not all are the same. One can tell the difference, just by relating to them. So relatively speaking, there is difference in the way things manifest.

h

 

But if life is all one, how does one mountain get to be holier than another? Because of some human interaction?