dwai

The taboo of enlightenment

Recommended Posts

My process has simplified so much in recent years into simple, raw presence.

 

I find no form, meditation, pursued skill, book, satsang, or evaded hardship to be more effective than simple raw presence.

 

It's what is, when all else is allowed to fall away.

It's what remains.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which reminds me of a saying from Gibran:
 

"...When you kill a beast say to him in your heart: ‘By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed.  For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand. Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven..."

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old3bob said:

which reminds me of a saying from Gibran:
 

"...When you kill a beast say to him in your heart: ‘By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed.  For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand. Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven..."

Wow.

 

Gibran never fails to cut through the fog.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/07/2020 at 4:20 AM, old3bob said:

 absolute simplicity 


That’s It.

It’s absolute simplicity because it is beyond the universe, beyond the world of objects. The space without objects would be an analogy. It’s not the ordinary simplicity which is in the universe of objects.

 

Are you guys familiar with the idea of turning the consciousness back on itself?

Here the witness, mindfulness, presence, or the awareness of the objects of consciousness (including mind and body), are only a door towards the pure awareness, or consciousness without an object.

 

One can go there by different techniques, like asking a question “Who am I?” or “To whom do these thoughts appear?”, and then trying not to answer with words but to feel the “subject”, which is emptiness and fullness, void, infinity, stillness, silence, transcendence, beyond, absolute, infinite completeness, unconditional love, etc.

 

So, the three stages are:

 

-identification with the person or body and mind

-identification with the witness

-identification with the pure consciousness (known by identity, no subject and object)

 

There are levels of depth in this movement from the witness towards the pure awareness or pure being (satchidananda).

We may also call them levels of subtleness, or levels of discerning the pure subjectivity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, silent thunder said:

My process has simplified so much in recent years into simple, raw presence.

 

I find no form, meditation, pursued skill, book, satsang, or evaded hardship to be more effective than simple raw presence.

 

It's what is, when all else is allowed to fall away.

It's what remains.


One of the functions of satsang or vigil or meditation or deep prayer would be exactly that-raw presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be aware that there is but a single track road to Enlightenment, whatever the apparent method. You must make yourself available to the Light & be prepared to die in its glory. On your rebirth, if you personalise it, you will find yourself set even further back than before.

However, if you turn to the Light impersonally afterwards, it will mark the beginning of an indescribably fulfilled path on which you will be supported by the Light on every step of your way.


☮️

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

'The taboo of enlightenment':

The fear of gathering the components to become a knowledgeable functional creator. Or holding the view that becoming the default of creation is the answer to everything.:)

Edited by mrpasserby
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is creation imperfect?

Does it need a helping hand from any individual, or is it necessary only to recognise and then swim with it?

 

☮️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daemon said:

Is creation imperfect?

Does it need a helping hand from any individual, or is it necessary only to recognise and then swim with it?

 

☮️

 

a loaded question...but we do know that toe nails need trimming now and then. B)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Daemon said:

Is creation imperfect?

Does it need a helping hand from any individual, or is it necessary only to recognise and then swim with it?

 

☮️

I appreciate the open and subjectively accomodating Japanese concept of wabi sabi when regarding the unfolding of the perception of life.

 

It seems to wisely bypass a notion of creation, [which implies a creator(s)] and accomodates space for individual awareness among the ever unfolding present.

 

Edited by silent thunder
subject verb issue
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another take is emanation instead of creation per-se., and with emanation there is also a return to its source.  As for gods and angels or deities they are undeniable when one one has stepped out of materialism and seen them in more subtle realms, which btw includes the witness of same given by the historic Buddha.  As for "God" I'd say that nut can't really be cracked until one knows death dies.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

a loaded question...but we do know that toe nails need trimming now and then. B)

Well said.:)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, old3bob said:

another take is emanation instead of creation per-se., and with emanation there is also a return to its source.

 

 

I wrote "creation" in reply to another poster who had used the word. Whichever words are used, I suppose you might agree that they only indicate limited concepts that need to be transcended eventually if Enlightenment is to be fully realised? In any case, some food for thought might concern whether "the source" actually even ever departed, (i.e. separated) from "the source"?

 

13 hours ago, old3bob said:

As for gods and angels or deities they are undeniable when one one has stepped out of materialism and seen them in more subtle realms, which btw includes the witness of same given by the historic Buddha.

 

 

Does not every individual have their own individual experience of objects that they experience? Some people who have experienced Enlightnment do not experience those specific objects just as some do not experience your specific individual dreams or similarly, for example, visit the Niagara Falls or the Grand Canyon in waking life.

 

13 hours ago, old3bob said:

As for "God" I'd say that nut can't really be cracked until one knows death dies.  

 

If you said that, I'd agree with it fully.

 

☮️

 

Edited by Daemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, silent thunder said:

individual awareness

 

The concept of individual awareness is the cardinal error from which all other errors flow.

 

☮️

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Daemon said:

 

The concept of individual awareness is the cardinal error from which all other errors flow.

 

☮️

 

 

soul is awareness individuated...such evolution is not an error  although egotism makes for a harder trip. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "soul"? Atman, Brahman, Shiva, jiva or something else?

 

☮️

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daemon said:

 

The concept of individual awareness is the cardinal error from which all other errors flow.

 

☮️

 


Please expound on what you intend to convey with this statement..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Daemon said:

What do you mean by "soul"? Atman, Brahman, Shiva, jiva or something else?

 

☮️

 

 

what can be seen as a particular weaving of pure light, thus not the grand cosmic field of light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 7:18 PM, dwai said:

When you look around, do you see things staying unchanging or are they constantly changing? Everything changes. Change is the reason for this world to exist. If there was no change, there would be no world. 

 

That is a way more insightful statement than many might think!

 

You might be interested in to know that Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System says exactly same, the whole creation is a result of motion. Unity, is the “default” condition of a dimension of motion. Unit motion equates to the speed of light, the default motion of the universe is outward at unit speed.  Speed, where the temporal magnitude is larger than the spatial magnitude, results in motion that is less than unity. This forms the physical part of the universe (space/time), the universe we can directly observe. Energy, where the spatial magnitude is larger than the temporal magnitude, results in a motion that is greater than unity. This forms the metaphysical part of the universe (time/space).

 

In the Law of One material, Don asked about this theory...

20.7 Questioner: Just as a sideline, a side question here: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex Dewey is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know of as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory.

27.14 Questioner: I will make a statement that I have extracted from the physics of Dewey Larson which may or may not be close to what we are trying to explain. Larson says that all is motion which we can take as vibration, and that vibration, which is pure vibration and is not physical in any way or in any form or in any density; that vibration, by— first product of that vibration is what we call the photon, particle of light. I was trying to make an analogy between this physical solution and the concept of love and light. Is this close to the concept of Love creating light, or not?

Ra: I am Ra. You are correct.

Further information here.

https://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=larson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/08/2020 at 5:49 PM, ilumairen said:

Please expound on what you intend to convey with this statement..

 

My statement was intended for another poster who had replied to something I wrote earlier and our conversation ended at that point.

 

☮️

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 7:10 AM, helpfuldemon said:

We are nothing if not beings that consume and feel.  Selfishness is the act of doing these things, and brings us comfort and delight.  Consumption is endless, and as I said, if you are low on opportunity or resources you might find yourself suffering from the absence of getting what you want.  The alternative to this, in selflessness, is to not desire, or to not take pleasure in what you are doing.  How do you go about finding joy and pleasure in life?  There are many ways.  Certainly we have no guarantee that our efforts will produce what we desire, but in the act of accomplishing them, and learning how to accomplish, there is pleasure- the bonus being that it produces what you desire.  

 

 

Such a Catch-22.  The desire thing.  How to go about finding joy and pleasure in life?  What I have found, is that my definition of joy or pleasure has morphed as spiritual development increases.  Yes, consumption is endless.  So it seems that the most obvious thing is to limit consumption, to not fall into the trap of wanting more and more...and this would be part of the Practice.

 

But I think the largest part of the Practice toward enlightenment is the part where we address the conditionings and attitudes we have gained throughout our lives.  In our impression-laden world of being a baby, then a child, then a teener, then an adult - all of our attitudes were predominately formed by 'others', no matter how well intended our folks and teachers were.

 

As I see it, the most important component of enlightenment is ridding ourselves of the unhelpful attitudes, biases, and conclusions we've come to.  Personally, when I did it, I wrote down every conceivable character flaw I could think of, and then I just assumed that I had it to some degree.  I wrote it all down (this was actually a Step 4 inventory, if anyone is familiar) and I was astounded at how many flaws I found.  But once in 'awareness' of the flaw, that is enough to bend the trajectory and 'see' ourselves as we really are.  When I did this, I had no idea it would put my feet on the first steps of the path to enlightenment.  I just wanted to stay sober.

 

Learning from the books of Rinpoche's and Masters is crucial in this too, I believe.  But I'm not sure that one can be attained without the other.  It's when our spiritual understanding is compatible with a clear soul - one that has been prepared by some degree of inner work - it is then the alignment of enlightenment can most reliably occur.  I have not walked a long Buddhist path with lineage, but any degree of enlightenment I may possess is as a result of self-realization.  And I do think that enlightenment must accompany self-realization.  Otherwise, it's all just head knowledge, not a true 'knowing'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 3:32 PM, old3bob said:

another take is emanation instead of creation per-se., and with emanation there is also a return to its source.  

 

 

Which is exactly what it says in the DDJ - reversion is the action of the Dao.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites