« "Enlightenment" is a meaningless concept | Main | I've got a new non-religious "mantra" »

July 23, 2018

Comments

It has been said by sages throughout the ages that there is no such thing as enlightenment as a "thing" that the apparent individual attains for him/herself. There is just the eclipse of the notion of "me" or "I" which obstructs visual/perceptual acuity.

It can't be attained by a discipline or process.. such process being akin to performing a surgical operation with a scalpel on a hologram. Nothing happens. Nothing changes. There is no event. It is just the reinstatement of clear vision. The re-establishment of 'just this'.

Now someone might say, "Well, this clear vision you're talking about sounds like enlightenment to me." Not really. It isn't anything that happens to anyone. It is not an objective occurrence. It is a subjective adjustment. A sort of displacement of the center of gravity or axis. There is no one there for it to happen to. There is just a shift.

No one becomes a saint. The mind is not suddenly transformed into a pristine, flawless, errorless functioning. Living goes on as always with its ups and downs and its irritations and reactions. there are preferences. Stumbling happens. The coffee is spilled. Anger arises and subsides.

It does not manifest materially as a thing with a shape, form or a quality you can name or describe. Perhaps there is a lessening of reaction or the lessening of the impetus behind a preference. What can be besides what is happening? It all goes of its own accord.

But again. Nothing happens to anyone because there isn't anyone for anything to happen to.

Just rambling a bit. Take it or leave it. Of course.

"a lessening of reaction or the lessening of the impetus behind a preference."

Tucson,

What you describe reminds me of a lobotomy.

Jesse

I quite liked John's 'perspective on things'. For example :-

John : “But don’t try to hang on to any of them, including what you thought was enlightenment.  Experiences come and go.  Let them come and go.”

On talking of experiences – including arising thoughts – it is often said for meditation' :- 'Let them come, let them be and let them go'.


John : “But I am grateful for the, what I would consider, solid and more down to earth influences that I have had.”

Its very easy to get drawn into charismatic 'teachers' and there fantastical promises - but once escaped, a valuable learning curve.


John : “Well, I no longer think that I’m divided like that.  I think what you see is what you get.  When I do my practice, I just think that my mind is less cluttered and distracted, and my body is more relaxed, so it’s just naturally easier to process life in a way that seems a little smoother.  If that makes sense?”

Makes sense to me. I once asked a Sufi teacher what he teaches, he replied “Just to help make lives a little lighter, a little easier.” What more could we want?

Tucson. You grasp John's view well and explain yours in terms I understand. When you talk of “lessening of reaction” Jesse logically (and probably quite naturally) reacted to it as reminding him of a lobotomy. My take on reactivity is different. It may sound a bit semantic but being responsive to a situation, a thought or emotion can result in an appropriate response whereas to react often stems from habit or conditioning and is somewhat blind. I think that one of the outcomes of meditation (not to ne sought I might add) is to enable a more fluid and appropriate response as opposed to the fixed and limited agenda of the mind.

Not, of course to be confused with a physical reaction to protect the body which is a natural and perhaps necessary act, whereas a 'lessening of reaction' in terms of the mind comes from an awareness of how the mind operates, how it is conditioned by the many factors instilled into us through the accident of the time, place and people we are born into.

Jesse wrote: "What you describe reminds me of a lobotomy."

--Anything said will remind someone of something which is the problem when you are trying to describe something non-conceptual with concepts. But I think rather than being stupefied, when the clutter of concepts drops there is a quiescence which obviates pursuit of impulses both positive and negative. Still, one might find themselves taking a run on a beautiful beach or engaged in an acrimonious discussion with a drunken (effectively lobotomized) neighbor about proper placement of a fence line. You never know. Life just happens of its own accord. But I don't really know anything about this despite my talking about it as if I do. I'm just flapping my gums. Go ask the enlightened.

"when you are trying to describe something non-conceptual with concepts."

Isn't enlightenment purely a concept? What is it if not a concept? This is why nobody can do much to define it other than with other concepts and descriptions, and nobody can agree on who, if anybody, is enlightened?

Shoko Asahara said of himself "Finally, I reached my goal in the holy vibration of the Himalayas. I attained supreme realization and enlightenment."

The Dalai Lama, a supposedly enlightened being, said of Shoko Asahara "you have the mind of a Buddha."

A few years later, Shoko Asahara used sarin gas (real stuff, not anti-Syrian propaganda) to kill 13 people and injure thousands in a Tokyo subway train.

Do enlightened beings use sarin gas to kill random people in attempts to regenerate Buddhism? I'm not enlightened, so I can't really say.


Jesse quoted what I said: "...when you are trying to describe something non-conceptual with concepts."

and retorted: " Isn't enlightenment purely a concept? What is it if not a concept?"

--In order to communicate verbally we must have concepts. The term 'enlightenment' is for that only. For the sake of the existence of this blog we must have concepts even if they are used to indicate the ineffable. I personally prefer the term "awakening" to "enlightenment". "Enlightenment" seems to carry more baggage but both are loaded terms sending the mind into a tailspin of ideas. This type of discussion would be more accurately served if nothing was said at all. Bring it to a full stop to the immediacy of presence. Save the verbiage for a fuel injection repair manual.

I don't think it exists, Tucson. Words or not.

I think some people are charismatic and ambitious, sometimes slyly so, and when they combine that drive and charisma and apply it to acting deep, we attribute some sort of superconsciousness to them.


Jesse writes: "I don't think it exists, Tucson. Words or not."

--It doesn't matter either way, imo, whether we think it exists or not. What does it matter what we think at all? In matters such as this when has thinking ever been of any help or provided any answers or clarity? In 10 or more years of this blog is anyone the wiser about WTF is really going on? We're just babbling in our wretched clulessness. The host himself has thrown up his hands and has become an atheist dedicated to science and the big bang theory. Sure, there are a few smart and clever commenters with a modicum of insight. But has anyone come even close to revealing the mysteries of life, death and eternity or why there is anything at all? We just go around in circles chasing our tails barking like frustrated caged dogs. If we could just stop for a minute.

Anyway, Jesse, why should the awakened, If it turns out there is such a thing, be "charismatic", "acting deep", or superconscious as you say? Perhaps they would act like a crabby cab driver or a powerful movie mogul, or like a delirious bum under a bridge, or whatever. I know, a contented crab fisherman despite the fact his pots are empty! That is the face of enlightenment!

Quote Jesse : Shoko Asahara said of himself "Finally, I reached my goal in the holy vibration of the Himalayas. I attained supreme realization and enlightenment." --- The Dalai Lama, a supposedly enlightened being, said of Shoko Asahara "you have the mind of a Buddha." --- A few years later, Shoko Asahara used sarin gas (real stuff, not anti-Syrian propaganda) to kill 13 people and injure thousands in a Tokyo subway train.


Jesse, can you back that up? Can you tell us what the source is for those two alleged quotes, and why you believe that source is reliable?

Tucson, provided that Jesse is able to satisfactorily back up what he's said there (the portion I've quoted), then is there anything you -- or any of the other defenders here of the concept (or non-concept!) of spirituality in general and enlightenment in particular, like Turan, or Dungeness, or Spencer, or Manjit -- would like to say about this?

If the Aum Shinrikyo "Master" had indeed claimed enlightenment, and if the generally revered and respected Dalai Lama had indeed acknowledged and supported that claim, then what would that mean? Would that mean that "enlightened" people can, like anyone else, sometimes go crazy and kill people? Or would it mean that Shoko Asahara was either deluded or lying, and, more importantly, that the Dalai Lama also was either deluded or lying? Would this second explanation mean that the Dalai Lama is either deluded or a charlatan (in as much as he poses as an enlightened being -- that is, he does not go out and stop people from treating him as such, like Jiddu K had done long ago)? I realize you have no way of knowing for sure, obviously, but given your understanding of enlightenment (that all of you touch on, every now and then), what do you think?

Appreciative Reader, I cut and pasted those quotes from The Shadow of the Dalai Lama by Victor and Victoria Trimondi.. Anyone can do the same if they want to assess the merit of them.

What I assume would remain undisputed is that D Lama and Shoko had some amount of correspondence and met more than once. Here's another interesting quote from one of D Lama's reps in Nipon-

“Whatever little relationship Asahara had with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan lamas fell purely under the religious domain in spirit and deed. I had nothing to do with the world-shocking criminal acts known and alleged to have been committed by the AUM cult. It is unthinkable that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is related with the criminal acts of AUM simply because of his casual spiritual relationship with Asahara”

"Casual spiritual relationship" is the best line there. It's like they were just channeling spirits and riding consciousness waves together, bro. D Lama don't be bombin' no body!

"Would that mean that "enlightened" people can, like anyone else, sometimes go crazy and kill people?"

Yes.

Mental institutions are full of people who appear to portray "enlightenment" experiences but lack any ability to competently embody it.

Many "enlightened" people have traditionally lived in the forest or in monasteries where they don't have to cope with the world.

Everyone has a shadow which is completely unconscious until it is made conscious and integrated into awareness in a healthy fashion. "Enlightenment" experiences can blast open the shadow and if you've been shadow shoving all your life,,,out comes Mr. or Mrs. Hyde.

Appreciative Reader,

You asked me about Jesse's quote:

"Shoko Asahara said of himself "Finally, I reached my goal in the holy vibration of the Himalayas. I attained supreme realization and enlightenment." --- The Dalai Lama, a supposedly enlightened being, said of Shoko Asahara "you have the mind of a Buddha." --- A few years later, Shoko Asahara used sarin gas (real stuff, not anti-Syrian propaganda) to kill 13 people and injure thousands in a Tokyo subway train."

-- We have no idea of the state of awareness of any of the individuals mentioned. Shoko says he attained enlightenment and the supposedly enlightened Dalai Lama said he did. That's all we know.. suppositions. How is enlightenment even measured or quantified? Who would do this and how do they know? Who are they? Who determined and measured their qualifications to determine if someone is enlightened or not, and so on. Since we don't even know what enlightenment is, how can we determine relative to that lack of knowledge what a supposedly enlightened person would or wouldn't do in any given circumstance? Really, we know nothing in this regard.

So, of course I don't know anything as far as any of you are concerned. I have my experiences and opinions about how reality is. How it appears to me, and I try to express it sometimes. But so what? Basically, it's hot air just like I'm doing now.

There is this assumption that an enlightened person would behave a certain way. Like they would be calm, kind, compassionate, wise with a glow of divinity in their aura and eyes. That their presence would instill peace, reverence and inspiration. That they would reveal supernatural truths. You would think so. But maybe not, and so what if they did? Does that mean they are enlightened or just good actors and slick talkers as Jesse said? Maybe they just have a little enlightenment and to the rest of us shlubs that sounds like real enlightenment when in fact it isn't. Maybe if they are are silent that would mean they are enlightened. But why?

There was a revered East Indian guru a while back. His disciples were convinced he was the real deal. He mostly laid around in a loincloth and said very little. Sometimes someone would say something that would set him off and he would chuck fruit at them, usually bananas.

Could that be the true sign of enlightenment?

Tucson said:

"There was a revered East Indian guru a while back. His disciples were convinced he was the real deal. He mostly laid around in a loincloth and said very little. Sometimes someone would say something that would set him off and he would chuck fruit at them, usually bananas.

"Could that be the true sign of enlightenment?"

Yes, if your object of worship has been the monkey god.

From Appreciative Reader :- "Tucson, provided that Jesse is able to satisfactorily back up what he's said there (the portion I've quoted), then is there anything you -- or any of the other defenders here of the concept (or non-concept!) of spirituality in general and enlightenment in particular, like Turan, or Dungeness, or Spencer, or Manjit -- would like to say about this?"

No, not really App.Reader, can't say that I'm interested in Asahara or the Dali Lama.

I will throw another 'two-pennyworth' of thoughts into the arena though on this 'enlightenment' business.

For me, self and mind are no longer mysteries but simply the result of the accumulation of experiences 'stored' in the brain as mind. From this vast store of information (the mind) a self naturally manifests.

Often, the self is assumed (and usually unconsciously) to be a real and separate entity, not only would it use information for its day-to-day living in the world, it would also 'latch on' to concepts that appear to promise more than simple living. Perhaps because it senses its precariousness and inevitable demise it attaches itself to concepts, to beliefs that offer some sort of meaning and continuity that does not occur in real life.

It is quite feasible that in deeply realising the illusion of mind and self as being mental constructs such freeing is enlightenment – blown all out of context and proportion to fit into various inventions to accommodate the insecurities of the mind/self.

I often wonder that life ('the universe and everything') is so simple, we miss it.

Quote Jesse : The Shadow of the Dalai Lama by Victor and Victoria Trimondi..


I’m afraid I’d never heard of either the book or the authors before, Jesse, but of course that’s no surprise since I’ve not heard of a great many things.

A quick look-through online tells us that Herbert and Mariana Röttgen (the husband-wife team who, some years after their marriage, both changed their names to the pseudonyms they used to write under -- which is kind of weird, but kind of romantic too!) are seen, at least by some people, as rabidly anti-Dalai-Lama and anti-Tibetan-Buddhism and, more generally, as anti-Tibet. Apparently they are considered, by some, as Chinese plants, either stooges (that is, dupes) or else (perhaps paid) agents of the Chinese government, whose agenda is to aid the Chinese in discrediting the Tibetan movement. And a browse through the authors’ own website does give off the unmistakable whiff of a very biased worldview. (And, to me at least, that bias seemed founded, at least in part -- and irrespective of any vested China-centric leanings -- on a violent reaction away from the collective national Nazi past of this German/Austrian couple, given the misguided efforts by the Nazis to expropriate Indic (“Aryan”) systems of thought to service of their own psychotic worldview, starting with that awry swastika of theirs. But that last was just my own, personal impression, and one based on no more than a quick browse.)

On the other hand, it is perhaps only to be expected that those they end up exposing (or vilifying, depending on your POV) would harbor (and express) negative opinions about these two. And if we are to be skeptical about the antecedents of the critics of the Dalai Lama, then surely we should be equally skeptical of (and demand evidence validating) the authenticity of any criticism directed at those critics too? After all, if criticisms of the Dalai Lama may have been instigated by vested interests with Chinese sympathies, then criticism of these critics, in turn, equally, have been instigated by vested interests with Tibetan sympathies!

And in any case, Herr & Frau Röttgen-Trimondi do have a very sound background in publishing. They’ve published plenty of fairly mainstream names (including the Dalai Lama himself), back in the day. Their association with the Dalai Lama seems to go back years, decades actually, and it seems their relationship with the man seems to have gradually changed from one based on adulation (or at least pronounced admiration) to disillusionment -- which suggests that it is at least possible that this change in their outlook about the man may well be based on their bona fide discovery of less than savory details about Kalchakra Tantra practices in the course of their research into Tibetan Buddhism. Given all of this, while they may well be very biased (and therefore not necessarily reliable) in their opinions and views, nevertheless I don’t think they’d actually lie, these two, when it came to presenting facts.

On the other hand (that would be the third hand!), this book that you mention is uploaded online in the authors’ website. I browsed through some of that book, and especially the chapter dealing with the Dalai Lama’s association with Shoko Asahara, and nowhere did I find any mention that the Dalai Lama actually said that this man Asahara was “enlightened”. At one place, the authors do report that Asahara had said (this was Asahara’s version) the Dalai Lama had told him -- as you very rightly quote him -- the he had the “mind of a Buddha”. But then Asahara also claimed a great many other things about his association with the Dalai Lama. He claimed that he was a direct student (or direct disciple) of the DL, and also that the DL had asked him to do something to “regenerate” Buddhism in Japan (this last claim would mean that the DL was at least indirectly involved directly in the gas attack). The DL denied these specific claims that Asahara made about that meeting, so we have no reason to give any greater credence to Asahara’s claim about the “mind of a Buddha” quote of the DL’s.

Can we rule this out? Obviously not. It is quite possible that it is the DL who was lying, not Asahara. But without direct evidence, I suppose it makes more sense to give him the benefit of the doubt, and to give greater credence to his (the DL’s version) than that of this psycho killer.


Sorry, long comment! But I did want to check this out, as best I could without moving my butt and with a few lazy clicks from my armchair. And it seems we’d do well to take this claim of the Dalai Lama endorsing Shoko Asahara’s claim of enlightenment with a pinch of salt.

.

To be clear, there seems no doubt at all that the two did know each other, the Dalai Lama and this Asahara person. The Dalai Lama does refer to him as his “friend”, and I have no clue if that was only a figure of speech, that is, just commonplace courtesy, or if he did view that man as actually his friend. But that’s a different matter altogether : there’s no reason, after all, for the Dalai Lama not to know someone, or even to be generally close to someone, who later on turned out to be psycho and a homicidal maniac, not unless we insist on vesting him (the Dalai Lama) with some God-like omniscience.

.

All of that said, your question (and Brian’s, and mine) still remains valid, in a general sense. Brian had asked, earlier on, if you had a police-style line-up of ‘suspects’, then would someone (either someone who’s themselves enlightened, or someone who’s knowledgeable about these things) be able to pick out from among this line-up those who are actually enlightened? If not, then it does seem that enlightenment is wholly subjective, and entirely suspect!

So then, the question still remains : If someone who’s either themselves enlightened, or else is familiar with the concept/non-concept of enlightenment, and if they were told that someone like the Dalai Lama had apparently endorsed an out-and-out psycho’s declaration of having attained enlightenment, then how would they explain this? One line of explanation obviously would be to doubt the messenger : but that apart? Assuming the messenger were right after all, would this mean that enlightenment does not rule out running amok and killing people, or else might this mean that the Dalai Lama, that widely respected man, is a fraud? Or would they, in attempting to explain what you say, wholly discount this second possibility, flat-out refuse to even consider this hypothetical, and insist that there’s no way the messenger can be right in this instance? Or what?

Quote Joe : Everyone has a shadow which is completely unconscious until it is made conscious and integrated into awareness in a healthy fashion. "Enlightenment" experiences can blast open the shadow and if you've been shadow shoving all your life,,,out comes Mr. or Mrs. Hyde.


Joe, what you say gels well with a Tantric POV, especially the so-called left-handed way within Tantra. Tantra -- both Vajrayana and Hindu Tantra -- look at the spiritual endeavor as essentially the unleashing of latent powers, which can be used for either evil or for good (or simply ignored, and instead subsumed in one’s higher quest for enlightenment, and this is the ideal scenario -- or so goes the theory, or at least, my understanding of some of the things I’ve heard over time).

I agree, from a strictly Tantric POV (and I suppose that POV is shared in more or less degree by other systems as well), there isn’t necessarily a disconnect between apparent spiritual progress, of a sort, and apparently evil conduct.

Except, of course, no one, irrespective of their “system” or tradition, would associate the pinnacle within their system (which would be this “enlightenment” thing, I suppose that would be the Buddhistic Nirvana in the context of the Dalai Lama) with subsequently going off one’s head and rampaging around killing folks. That was what led me to ask this question about the Dalai Lama’s apparent endorsement of Shoko Asahara’s claim of enlightenment.

.

Of course, the simplest explanation would be that this is all nonsense, plain and simple. People simply gassing away about something wholly non-existent. This POV would adequately explain everything. I was wondering if there is some other (more nuanced, less dismissive) explanation as well, that might satisfactorily cover this question that Jesse raised here. And sure, what you say could be a valid enough explanation.

Quote Tucson : Since we don't even know what enlightenment is, how can we determine relative to that lack of knowledge what a supposedly enlightened person would or wouldn't do in any given circumstance? Really, we know nothing in this regard.


Actually, Tucson, I was hoping that some of those who often say wise things about enlightenment (no sarcasm or snark intended when I say this, these comments often do appear literally and actually wise to me) would either have sampled this enlightenment themselves, or else, at least, would know something about it. And I was hoping they’d throw light on this basis this familiarity (perhaps at first hand, or else at least at second or third hand) of this mysterious thing called enlightenment.


Quote : There is this assumption that an enlightened person would behave a certain way. Like they would be calm, kind, compassionate, wise with a glow of divinity in their aura and eyes. That their presence would instill peace, reverence and inspiration. That they would reveal supernatural truths. …But why?


Absolutely. Any dissonance we (or at least, I) might have about an apparently enlightened person going full-on psycho, and another apparently enlightened person allegedly endorsing this psycho’s enlightenment, is based wholly on this assumption that you speak of. (As well, now that I think of it, a second implicit assumption, the assumption that enlightenment, once achieved, is yours for good, with no possibility of recession to a more mundane state of being.) So that, if we’re clear about how we’re thinking (or at least, about how I am thinking), then what this should lead one to doubt is not so much the validity of enlightenment itself (which is a whole different discussion), as these assumptions about enlightenment. I take your point.

I notice that you do not say anything about the Dalai Lama at all. Which is fine, of course you don’t have to : but do you hold any view about the man at all, one way or the other? In this context, I mean?

Quote Turan : No, not really App.Reader, can't say that I'm interested in Asahara or the Dali Lama.


Fair enough, Turan.


Quote : For me, self and mind are no longer mysteries but simply the result of the accumulation of experiences 'stored' in the brain as mind.


Right! In fact, I do remember, now, your taking this line a number of times in your comments here. I’m sorry, I must have confounded you with some of the others who do support and speak about enlightenment (and about spirituality in general) as something real.


Quote : It is quite feasible that in deeply realising the illusion of mind and self as being mental constructs such freeing is enlightenment


Makes sense.

As for this “deeply” : care to explore that part some more? “Deeply”, as opposed to what? “Deep” in what sense? That is, how is this any different from just a simple appreciation of this idea?

After all you yourself do have a good enough grasp of this idea. So do I, for that matter (although unlike you I leave open the possibility of a real, larger, more dramatic "enlightenment", without necessarily buying into that idea). Would that mean, going by this sense of the word, that you and I are both enlightened?


Quote : I often wonder that life ('the universe and everything') is so simple, we miss it.


Again, agreed. Perhaps it is just that.

Of course, while I do understand where you’re coming from, nevertheless what you’re saying, and what I’m nodding my head in agreement with, isn’t remotely “simple”, not at least when it comes to how that relates to "the universe and everything". This -- what you say -- is merely acceptance that we do not know a great many things. Which is perfectly reasonable, but it is no more than that. It does leave wholly unanswered the actual “why” (as well as a large part of the “how”) when it comes to “the universe and everything”.

What a crock of shit! They find water on mars and God dies!!!!

A. Reader inquired of me:

"I notice that you do not say anything about the Dalai Lama at all. Which is fine, of course you don’t have to : but do you hold any view about the man at all, one way or the other? In this context, I mean?"

-- All I know is the Tibetan astrologers and high Lamas hold the Dalai Lama in high regard. I'm not sure that unequivocally places him among the enlightened. To me he seems to be a good humored. likeable and unencumbered person.. a good guy who has some wise things to say both in person and in books. That's all I know or am qualified to comment on. I remember a while back he was ill and his doctors suggested that he eat some meat to gain strength which he did. I'm sure this shocked the hard core vegetarians.. "The Dalai Lama ate meat? No wayaaa!!"

A. Reader also inquired:

"Actually, Tucson, I was hoping that some of those who often say wise things about enlightenment (no sarcasm or snark intended when I say this, these comments often do appear literally and actually wise to me) would either have sampled this enlightenment themselves, or else, at least, would know something about it. And I was hoping they’d throw light on this basis this familiarity (perhaps at first hand, or else at least at second or third hand) of this mysterious thing called enlightenment."

-- I am glad that some of my comments have been of value to you. But comments is all they are. They are not the thing (or non-thing) pointed to at all. Actually, the term enlightenment means something to me but it carries so much baggage I don't use it. "Clarity" is a little better and I think it is real, but since it is purely subjective without objective content there is little to accurately say about it. No way to package it up neatly with a bow. Turan said something i liked:

"For me, self and mind are no longer mysteries but simply the result of the accumulation of experiences 'stored' in the brain as mind. From this vast store of information (the mind) a self naturally manifests."

--When all that dross (self) sloughs away, only clarity remains.

A.R. 'Deeply' as in uncovering every aspect of the illusory mind/self.

It is a fallacy to think that our human mind/thinking, being a recently evolved survival tool will ever be able to answer the type of questions we pose here. It is not built for that purpose and we kid ourselves in thinking that it can solve these types of problems - actually they are not problems at all, thinking just makes them such.

I reckon science will find out more about the how but the why will always remaining in the realm of conjecture and no doubt continue to add to the confusion and conflict that the insecure mind/self always generates.


Signing off now - chat again in a week or so.

I have never heard a RSSB Saint mentioning enlightment

and why should they when The Absolute is not enlightened and His IQ is zero.

They only talk about putting your old bike in the garage
after They gave you a Lamborghini and you love it so much

In RSSB , all is for free :
You don't even need hate the bike,
You don t even need learning LOVE that car

Everything is automatic and you can take the bike once in a whilr
for some better comparison

Love the Sound, . . . Be The Sound
BE the one without IQ

Ooooooh that's irritating U , . . . OK , no problem, . . . next time better

777

Oooh yes : "Do no harm" is a must !
Plus : No Dogmas


777 said, "I have never heard a RSSB Saint mentioning enlight(en)ment"

--I don't think I did either. However, I heard the term "God realization" used in RSSB lots of times. This is probably because in RSSB God is a thing somewhere to be reached or attained via a process of do's and don't's performed by an individual (soul or jiva).

In "enlightenment", as taught in some Buddhist traditions for example, there is not any God to be attained or any individual to attain it. Both are dualistic concepts with no reality other than the conception of them. Ideas in mind.

In enlightenment, as I understand it in those traditions, there is no 'where' to go or anyone to go there.. if there was a 'there' to go to, and therefore there is nothing to it.. which is really very simple, but also presents the greatest difficulty because it cannot be conceived. There is nothing, no object, to grasp or hold on to. It can't be owned by anyone. As soon as you think you see it, you say, "Oh that's it. That's what enlightenment is." and in that very instant of thinking that, it's gone. Poof! There may be some residual impression that remains. Some token fragment to carry with you as a memory or even to make a religion out of if you need some money or power. But that's not it.

But this nothing is not absolutely nothing. It is just that the polarity of this and that is absent. At this point description is futile, obviously. As soon as you name it you've lost it. Infinity can't be constrained by the walls of notions. Once the polarity of thought manifests you have set in motion a chain reaction that can build a a universe, a creation to get lost in for a moment or ages.

So God Realization as a concept is in the realm of duality and multiplicity, a deception that will keep you entrenched in the thought universe of this and that.

Enlightenment is...

Don't ask me.

"I have never heard a RSSB Saint mentioning enlightment"

Maybe not, but they hired to to write books about Buddhism which I think mentioned enlightenment.

And there is a dogma of RSSB. Not sure about the other sects, but RSSB most certainly had dogma, though that term isn't used outside of Christianity. But there are beliefs you MUST hold. There is a diet requirement for God's sake based on old concepts of elements like earth and fire, and how much karma is created by harming animals with various amounts of each element in them.

Why do you attempt to paint RS as something it isn't? You're doing people a disservice by misrepresenting a cult. Very tricky and dishonest, 777.

777:
"They only talk about putting your old bike in the garage
after They gave you a Lamborghini and you love it so much"

Wow, that was outstanding.
Amazing.

Jesse:
grow up, you sound too childish, what's your age ?

One Initiated,

I'm old enough to not care about impressing cult members online who try to covertly convert others with bad poetry and lies.

Jesse

And then it does mean,
you do care and accept the compelling arguments
of those who try to covertly convert believers to become non-believers ?

And you've been converted by someone or by your own?

And you are here to convert more by expressing your non-believer views ?
What's the difference ?

Hi Tucson from Vegas, . . long time no see!

Perhaps not in Las Vegas but most of the time
the Lamborghini fills all your thoughts
especially the first month, . . all the time
wherever You did park it

A friend of mine bought a Delorian
and his "feel" becomes every year stronger

So, in my case, I have even not to go anywhere.
Charan JI gave me that sweet Sound and it's jubilating all the time
Whatever I do, .... I'm not an Angel but it's always manifest
In that ( eternal ) state, there is no dogma, no law, no scripture
no buddhism,
It's like going a combi of Michael Jackson, Mozart, Hândels Halleluya, Pink Floyd, 10cc
and Indian Sarangi all the time

How Charan gave us this

I did nothing of importance, never , exept Simran
Simran ALL THE TIME
I just believed that it would work.
No meat was since birth, so that I did good,. . but which good - I didn't like

Housefathers life ? . . . I enjoy(ed) plenty
The 2 1/2 hour, I failed miserably - - only lately I understand the importance which is
amongst many
to have a defence against the beauties of

Ethic life: I guess I m not a real champ but yes I missed once a million $
by not cooperating in being a false witness

No drugs . . . I had a super bad experience with Hashish, so bad , that I never touched anymore
again but with Alcohol, as an ex-addict, I failed regularly (hi Tucson, Hi Brian )

So where came the Music forth anyway, Only Charan who integrated his giant force in the 5 words knows

Yes, the 5 words, . . . so ridiculous people place them on the web,
like eating a book , . . all power from the author lost

Thank You "ONE" , few can read what is between my lines
between my words,
I guess one must start with my first comment here

Ooooh Yes, . . . So much Info in this Sound too
Data about former lifes, . . . lives to come, Yes, . . . exciting

So all exers start 24/7 Simran ( if you have it from Charan > It's dynamite

Jim, . . . no phrases except St Paul who said it : "Never stop praying"
the Russian Pilgrim

It makes you invulnerable, . . Die while living ....problem solved
The almost daily PHYSICAL OBJECTIVE SERENDIPITIES > OMG

777

ps
Sorry Jessy, I read only yr last line , So try to be nice in last lines

Hi 777,

Frankly, most of the time I derive little from your comments. Too abstruse for me. Way out there, intentionally I think, and not just because of a language barrier.

I liked what you said a few comments back: "The Absolute is not enlightened and His IQ is zero."
I can relate to that and occasionally, few and far between, to other comments you have made.

Glad you enjoy your Shabd experience. All I hear is a loud hiss due to the noise of a fence post driver by my right ear a few decades back.

One Initiated,
Not sure if you noticed, but this site is called church of the churchless and the owner of it is a non satsangi.

When I'm allowed to show up at your satsangs and question you and tell you that gurinder is a fraud, then feel free to get back to me.

You have plenty of venues that prohibit free speech and force people to respect false idols. Here I'm free to tell you that your cult is just one of a million garbage religions from India and I feel no need to explain myself or show any respect to you or your cult.

God bless America.

Jesse

Jesse:

Your above response is looking more like a defending comment,
and not a thoughtful response to the question I asked you.

Just think if all the believers move away from this blog,
completely stop reading and writing any more comments,

To whom you and likes will prove your point ?

There can not be a Night, if there is no Day.

This will become such a dead and a dull place.
I am sure you or even Brian will not then like to open this in the browser.

God is already blessing America so much,
You are opting to not open your door to receive the bliss.

One,
I've been reading this blog for years. Having a bunch of guru fanatics around doesn't make the blog good. You just have a massive ego problem and think your input is valuable.

You're acting like when a woman becomes unbearable and you leave her, and her only way of trying to get you back is to tell you how much you need her.

If you all left I'd probably comment more often and would be able to have better discussions with people who are more rational.

Understand that only non-believers need to prove their point,
the believers just enjoys HIS bliss - no matter if other person acknowledges or not :D

Yes, you might need many more comments to prove your false points.

Because only then you will feel some happiness inside,
when you observe more non-believers resonate with you.
It's clearly noted that it gives immense happiness.

After all it's the resonance which everyone looks for.

You are trying to prove the negation of something you were not able to taste,
and still you won't ever be able to do that satisfactorily even to yourself, let alone the masses.
because you'll always carry a doubt subconsciously that
"what if there WAS that thing which you were not able to taste"

By HIS grace, some feel that they are in resonance with the whole universe,
and with HIM and the NAAM,
and that's why they are always happy, with our without posting a comment.

May God wake you up soon.

"Understand that only non-believers need to prove their point,
the believers just enjoys HIS bliss - no matter if other person acknowledges or not :D"

Which is why you guys are here arguing with me, right? You have no need to prove a point, and you show it by writing hundreds of comments and trying to prove a point. Makes a lot of sense.

You want me to believe that you're enjoying bliss and not foolishly getting butthurt on the internet because I insulted your crooked thief guru and everyone's stupid claims to be seeing lights and sounds. But I can actually see you getting upset. This much is obvious. It's this supposed spiritual bliss that there is no evidence for.

You're lying to yourself and everyone here. You've never felt profound spiritual bliss. You only said that after I made fun of you for thinking I have no business to disbelieve on a disbelief blog because you're all the same. You pretend to be holy men, then you get defensive and mad when anyone calls you out. Then when you realize that you look like any other worldly idiot arguing and being egotistical, suddenly you go back to "I'm just so blissed out, man. I'm so enraptured by the shabd."

The fact is this. Satsangis are lame. Satsangs are lame. Your guru is boring and has nothing to say. The books you're supposed to buy are often poorly written, poorly translated and deceptive. Nobody is having mind blowing blissful experiences, but the fact that you all pretend to be astral projecting makes you all liars. Everyone who says anything more than "I believe some day I MIGHT experience something" is lying.

This why you're here trying to prove yourself to me instead of sitting in supposed meditational bliss, or sitting at a satsang listening to old people ramble on about important topics like not stealing, guru is god because reasons, and sach khand after death because i'm too busy for it now.

You come here to prove something to yourself, and you'll likely keep coming until you stop trying to convince yourself that the Punjabi business man is anything more than "sumdood" getting rich off of promising you heaven when he has no heaven to give you.

Frauds and liars everywhere. Get out of the cult and finally become happy about who you are. Stop trying to be what your Indian David Koresh tells you to be.

https://www.facebook.com/whatdidijust/videos/216819602349884/

Jesse,

While I tend to agree with your sentiments regarding RSSB, ultimately we don't really know for sure, despite appearances. So, when you say to One Initiated: "...you look like any other worldly idiot arguing and being egotistical..", I think this is a perfect example, an absolutely perfect example, of the pot calling the kettle black.

Jesse, good points. When I see RSSB/Sant Mat true believers spending so much time talking about how much bliss and supernatural uplift they enjoy, and criticizing people who don't believe like they do, I think about motorcycle/scooter riders, of whom I used to be one.

When I had my Burgman Suzuki 650 maxi-scooter, I suppose I could have found a web site or blog that argued it is stupid and dangerous to ride a motorcycle or scooter. And then I suppose I could have posted comments every day trying to convince people that it was enjoyable to ride around on two motorized wheels, and they should try it.

I didn't do this, of course. I simply enjoyed riding my scooter. If someone questioned that decision, pointing out how dangerous it was, I'd just smile and say something like, "It depends on how you ride, and what gear you wear."

I never had an urge to criticize people who didn't look upon motorcycling/scootering the way I did, or disparage them because they chose not to ride one. I just enjoyed what I was doing, and understood that other people had good reasons for doing what they did -- driving a car, for example.

There's something about religion that makes true believers strangely defensive.

I suspect it's because they aren't convinced themselves that what they believe is true, so they feel a need to defend their shaky beliefs at all costs. If they truly were living the religious life they claim they are, seemingly they would simply enjoy that life, as I enjoyed my scooter, without feeling such a need to proclaim to the world how virtuous and special they are.

-
My Positive and kind Rebuttal

I completely sympathize with U Brian !

I just joined because persons I love
were here accused of crimes
and they will not defend themselves
Not in the traditional way

Jesus did not

I'm not interested in massive conversion
If one did , It would make me happy
but my compassion doesn't go so far
as praying for the 6 billion non-satsangis of this world

During the time here however . . .
I tried to give some sense concerning & around several misunderstood items
like the actual 2+2=5 questions on CNN
There were and still are fundamental un-truths here and with my character
I can't stand that

Like standing at the sea and somebody drowns
and a blogger says : Push him deeper
and he will be fine

Even @my age I would jump in the water

Every happening on earth happens according to His Will

We are in His / OUR Play

Most people are happy to have been born and exist

So talking about the Sound is like showing a buoy or the well-known rope
if a kid falls in the well

I never expected the nice support yesterday from Tucson, . . He made my day

777

BTW
Perhaps when U delete you can place one's deleted text in a special section ( N° 15 )
That would be nicer

"I suspect it's because they aren't convinced themselves that what they believe is true, so they feel a need to defend their shaky beliefs at all costs."

-- Speaking of this, where is Spencer Tepper, the supreme defender of RSSB at all costs.? Taking a sabbatical I guess.

777, commenting on a blog or website isn't a right, it is a privilege. As I've mentioned several times before, I only delete comments when they are spam, unduly insulting of someone, or don't make sense.

Sometimes I delete one of your comments when it doesn't make any sense. People expect that when they click on the "comments" section of a blog post or news story, the comments will relate to what is being talked about.

I'm very loose about this, allowing comments that are way off-topic. However, your comments often are not only off-topic, they don't even relate to ANY topic. So if you're more careful about making sense, you won't find your comments being deleted.

The best thing to do is this: read the post you're commenting on. Say something that relates to the topic of the post. Don't be preachy. Understand that people aren't interested in hearing all about the bliss of the sound current, blah, blah, blah. I and many others who visit this blog have been there and done that.

We're very familiar with RSSB/Sant Mat dogma. We don't need more supernatural blather. So no, I'm not going to have a special place for your wildly off-topic, preachy comments. Again, say something that makes sense and is at least somewhat related to the topic of a post. That way your comments won't be deleted.

Tucson, that was my point. I'm a worldly idiot. I make no claims to having known god intimately and my character and all its flaws are identical to believers.
If ever I start making claims about knowing god you can apply a new standard to me based upon the stated and promised upgrades that god knowledge confers according to rssb et al.

OK, Jesse, so am I.. a worldly idiot, but maybe that's not such a bad thing. These holier than thou types are sometimes hard to take and maybe we worldly types need to lead the holy by good example.

Jesse:

"Which is why you guys are here arguing with me..."

Again you are grossly wrong in perceiving the whole point.

Your this comment reflects the actual state of mind of yours,
which you were trying badly to hide behind a disguised smartypants.

when you are no longer having any sarcasm left,
you speak nothing but your true mind.
And I must admit what a sad situation you are in right now.

As tucson mentioned, sometimes examples works better:
Maybe you can perceive the situation with some more clarity:

Some says: "Grapes are sour"
Some like Jesse: "Grapes doesn't exist"

And some are always enjoying the grapes.
Since for you, there were never any grapes,
you can't imagine it's sweetness and the quantity one is experiencing.

Nobody has slightest need or urge to prove anything to you.

Those who are enjoying it, don't mind to come to the blogs,
being feeling the brotherhood, they don't mind to mention others again it's sweetness.

Also read Brian's comment, that's more for you than anyone else:
"It depends on how you ride, and what gear you wear."

"Nobody has slightest need or urge to prove anything to you." Oh?

"Those who are enjoying it, don't mind to come to the blogs,
being feeling the brotherhood, they don't mind to mention others again it's sweetness." Wait, I thought...

"And some are always enjoying the grapes.
Since for you, there were never any grapes,
you can't imagine it's sweetness and the quantity one is experiencing." I thought you weren't...

You have nothing to prove, and you're writing more and more comments to prove that you have nothing to prove and are simply experience unimaginable bliss that I can never experience. That makes a lot of sense. Your angry rants about grape bliss prove my unhappiness and your superior state of mind, too.

By the way, One, aside from the weirdness of your entire grape analogy, I don't like any kind of grapes. Grapes is the most useless fruit of all time. Is there any nutrition in fruit other than diabetes causing sugars? I don't think so. Plus they don't taste very refined to me. Do an analogy about blueberries next time.

Believer in the depths of belief forget that those like myself already passed that stage. I made the same retarded arguments that you made, and I already justified the cult to myself for years. Basically, I graduated while RS adherents are still reading the first page of the textbook called "There is no eternal audio bliss. This is a cult."

One initiated wrote:
Because only then you will feel some happiness inside, when you observe more non-believers resonate with you. It's clearly noted that it gives immense happiness.
After all it's the resonance which everyone looks for.
You are trying to prove the negation of something you were not able to taste, and still you won't ever be able to do that satisfactorily even to yourself, let alone the masses. because you'll always carry a doubt subconsciously that "what if there WAS that thing which you were not able to taste"
By HIS grace, some feel that they are in resonance with the whole universe,
and with HIM and the NAAM, and that's why they are always happy, with our without posting a comment, and further in his other comments he wrote:
And some are always enjoying the grapes. Since for you, there were never any grapes, you can't imagine it's sweetness and the quantity one is experiencing
….. Is it worth for these imaginary bunch of grapes, being a disciple, slave or servant of a master… One should think seriously a little more.
…..This week on 26th July Baba Gurinder was on one day visit in Tenerife Spain. Although only the residents of Canary islands were invited very few from other places were also present.
In the Q &A session, most of the satsangis were sobbing asking for grace, and as per them their meditation was not fruitful at all. The only thing Baba could do was to ask them to have patience and continue.
The discourse was short, maybe 15 mins. by a lady, pointing out the need of a master as we are all unhappy inspite of all the technological developments and comforts.
Even in a question asked by someone, that why all the discourses point out towards the negative side of life, referring as we are all unhappy, Baba replied that it was the perception of the person giving the discourse.
Some other questions to which he has no answers he skipped away in a professional way. No recordings or photography or notes were permitted. I have no idea how much was the cash collection from Seva.
Doesn’t it reflects that if not all, most of the Satsangis especially the Gurmukhs are disillusioned, depressed?

"pointing out the need of a master as we are all unhappy inspite of all the technological developments and comforts.
Even in a question asked by someone, that why all the discourses point out towards the negative side of life, referring as we are all unhappy, Baba replied that it was the perception of the person giving the discourse."

It wasn't just that lady giving a satsang who says people are unhappy without divine turban man. It's an integral part of religion to a degree, and especially Indian religion, to say that life sucks until you join the best cult.
In one of the old Philosophy of the Masters books by (supposedly) Sawan Singh, there's a line attributed to Krishna (though it's not in any Vaishnavite text I've read) that says something like Krishna's best gifts are sickness and pain because it makes people worship him. RS has been capitalizing on depression for a long time before Gurinder.

Baba Gurinder is also just trying to make that woman look dumb because he's an ass and is good at shifting blame instead of owning up to RS teachings and things he's probably said himself. Had he ever even taken the time to listen to his own guru uncle's satsang's, one of the common topics is that people are more depressed and unhappy than ever, so they need to join this one particular Indian cult to stop being depressed.

Obviously, RS has never stopped anyone from being depressed or sad, nor do its gurus shun modern depression-causing conveniences being that they own airplanes and have wrist watch fetishes. Gurinder won't even initiate or let people visit dera if they're prescribed medication for depression. You'd think he'd have more faith in his product and tell them to stop taking meds, and visit dera immediately to fix his struggling chelas.

But as I said, Gurinder Singh is an ass. A total fraud. I confirmed it as soon as I asked him one question at the Dera and he gave me a mindless canned response that in no way applied to my question.

Brian,

I'm not sure acommenting with you is a privalage
I think The first amendement obliges you
It would be an interesting case in court
Here inFrance you are obliged to give space for contra
when people are hurt in writing

please give me one example of on eof 400
of my comments which not touching the topic ?

I admit some misunderstanding can occur
when using one of five non-maternal tongues
although English is SO very well suited
for speaking The Word between the words !
Like thoughts are transferred crypticly
and yes then creating great joy
but also great distress in one's subconscious

777

Actually, Jesse, i like your non word-mincing style. A good point.. why did a guru like Charan, supposedly god in human form, have what appeared to be a wrist watch fetish? I know, there is no time in the highest regions.

This is something I have not heard discussed much and it really doesn't matter except to titillate discussion, but what about Sawan's (late RSSB "Great Master") senility? Here and there I have heard the rumor that he was unable to handle his official duties towards the end of his days due to dementia and that his affairs were handled by assistants. I used to like a particular picture of him because I thought he looked spiritual or other-worldly. Now, when I see that picture he looks, uh.. clueless. Which is it? I think it depends whether you are one of the faithful or not.


777, the United States first amendment is indeed about free speech. I have the freedom to decide who gets to speak on this blog, because it is my blog. Fortunately for you, I'm very liberal about allowing off-topic comments. You would have been banned on many or most newspaper sites, because you have a habit of either being preachy/dogmatic, or incomprehensible.

Here's a sampling of some of your off-topic comments. There are many more. Most of these shouldn't have been published, because they either were totally incomprehensible, or didn't relate to the blog post. From now on I'm going to be more diligent in deleting your off-topic and meaningless comments. :
-----------
- No air needed jesse Jesse, you are like the natives asking a reporter "When You will feed the girl in that box And because u r jesse : "They mentioned the radio" -

- Same for me Next time I enter the brothel I must much more empesize on the words and the sound But I loved THEM all the time, Jim 777 - and That was felt perhaps some preachers do that too without a word to say without judgement and hypocrisy and Jésus in their Heart Chakra I pray May this happen worldwide Oh My God -

I'm stunned, I go UP here again ! I see no single date, nada What is with you Long years you say 0*1=1 , . . . I said ten times = 0 .... then , now, you say : "existence" OK: God Exist , and you call HIM now "existance" ------------ And now you declare something similar : Dates exist while there are ZERO dates Is there a heatwave in Salem, OR ? I now see a little bit how come you ignore a 5 fold miracle (an impossibility) , 5 at the same time 777 it's nothing personal ( Al Capone )

Don't forget We are placed on a mafia planet It's theirs It enables us after vomit and do our thing of Sound and Light 777

I speak most of the time about Love In short sentences and words of the world Sant Mat Realistic, without archives, and lots of Meditation & constant Shabd for everyone Now readers can make their choice 777

What is wrong on our Planet : They : Misses compassion How come : D O G M A 777

Initiations champ 4 times ôsho is just kidding us Just skip him and win hours 777

- - ôsho; This is not RSSB at all Devaluated IQ versus beautiful Love ArchAngels with 9999 IQ, still licking their wounds, . . . Just try to find a way to love HIM 777 -

Jesse wrote:

I confirmed it as soon as I asked him one question at the Dera and he gave me a mindless canned response 
that in no way applied to my question.

So that explains your current state of mind,
and your rough behaviour.

Could you share what was your question and what was HIS response ?

One Initiated, I asked Gurinder why his followers are so annoying, and he said "bro, I don't even know, but it'll all be confirmed by someone who calls himself One Initiated. Now leave the cult before you drive the dummies away. You're costing me money with tough and real questions."

Well yes, I would like to let you know,
the most annoying asshole I've come across ever is: Jesse.

Now that you know you are irritated out of your own ass,
change yourself and you will be refreshed and changed,
your problem is solved!

I cringe everytime people bring up tech as an excuse for our diminished well-being. And most of these "satsangs" by the speakers are just re-canned trash.

"the most annoying asshole I've come across ever is: Jesse"

It's an honor. Thank you so much. I'll always cherish these moments we had together.

Quote Tucson : When all that dross (self) sloughs away, only clarity remains.


I appreciate your saying, as you do, that “there is little to accurately say about it”, and will respect it if you do not wish to attempt what you so clearly say is difficult to attempt, but would like to speak a bit more about this? How does this dross slough away, exactly? And this clarity that remains, how is this different, exactly, from the clarity or otherwise experienced before the self had “sloughed away”? And is it simply an experience, an understanding, that is momentary, or at least temporary, or would you say this “clarity”, once attained, tends to remain with you throughout? (Perhaps you could simply answer these questions from personal experience, rather than attempting to generalize?)

PS : Apologies for this belated response!

Quote Turan : 'Deeply' as in uncovering every aspect of the illusory mind/self.


I’m afraid I didn’t quite understand, Turan. Could you elaborate a bit more?

And, to go back to the two specific examples I’d brought up last time, would you say yourself are enlightened, per this understanding of the word? What about me? Me, I fully understand, conceptually, what you’re saying, and I even imagine it’s probably true, that the “self” is merely a by-product of this capacity to think and conceptualize and build models that evolution has happened to bestow us with, without this “self” itself having any underlying reality beyond this, but I think that, underneath this, beyond our self itself, there’s one of two possibilities, and I’m not sure which it is : either there is absolutely nothing at all, nada, or else the larger consciousness (yes, God) that people speak about and speculate about. But in understanding as well as agreeing with you about the illusory nature of the self itself, at the conceptual level, am I, then, enlightened too? If not, why not? What is now wanting, for me to qualify as an enlightened person?

(Just trying to better understand your particular point of view.)


Quote : It is a fallacy to think that our human mind/thinking, being a recently evolved survival tool will ever be able to answer the type of questions we pose here. It is not built for that purpose and we kid ourselves in thinking that it can solve these types of problems


If you look closely at this point of view, at what you’ve written, then I’m not so sure it necessarily measures up. This is just supposition, simply speculation, isn’t it?

I mean, if evolution hasn’t equipped us to answer these questions, why then would it have equipped us to ask them? To put it differently : seeing that we’ve evolved to ask these questions, and ask them in very large numbers over many centuries and millennia, then might we not have evolved the capacity to be able to eventually answer these questions as well, at least to the extent that our human capacities of questioning and wondering are satisfied? Why should we assume that we’ve evolved the capacity to ask, but not the capacity to answer?

True, we’ve been asking these questions for a very long time, and have not yet answered them to general satisfaction. But that’s no reason to say that we will never succeed in answering them, is it? After all, that holds for all questions under the sun (and beyond the sun). We have, today, managed to answer at least some of these (smaller, more mundane) questions to some extent, questions that we’d failed for a very long time to answer. Why shouldn’t we, necessarily, be able to answer even the bigger questions one day?

I’m not insisting that the ability to answer these questions is necessarily within our reach. I personally have no opinion on that all (nor see how one can reasonably hold any pronounced opinion on this one way or the other). I’m questioning your assumption that it isn’t, I’m questioning your unequivocal statement that reaching these answers is forever beyond our capacity. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say something like “perhaps we’ll end up answering these questions, perhaps not, we have no way of knowing this in advance, let’s just try and see”?


Quote : actually they are not problems at all, thinking just makes them such


In what way, Turan? Where we ultimately came from, how ultimately it is this weird and glorious world of ours came to be, how (ultimately) it is that the Big Bang itself happened, what (ultimately) drives the replication process or impulse that evolution itself is ultimately based on, these seem to be perfectly valid questions to me. True, it is only our thinking that results in our posing these questions, and so I suppose you’re right in saying that it is our thinking that results in these “problems”, nevertheless it does not follow that “they are not problems at all”, it does not follow that the questions aren’t valid.

(Or is it that I’m misinterpreting these words of yours?)

Appreciative wrote: "How does this dross slough away, exactly? And this clarity that remains, how is this different, exactly, from the clarity or otherwise experienced before the self had “sloughed away”?

-- I don't know how it sloughs away. It just does. It's not something that occurs via a mechanical step by step approach although it may appear that it does because it can happen while performing a mechanical step by step approach!

It's just sort of waking up from a dream. Very natural.. " Is that all it is?" All I can recommend is to just be aware that you are dreaming. As in regular dreams this often precedes waking up from it. However, making too much of an effort to do even this tends to reinforce the dream state, the sense of "I"... I am now aware that I am aware that I am in a dream state. I am now a person that is aware the he is dreaming and I go and tell others about this dreaming state that I am in so that they can become the type of person that knows that they are dreaming, etc. etc.

Just forget about it. Often when doing simple tasks that you are immersed in you will be in this natural state and not even think about it or know it because it is not the kind of thing you can think about without losing it . Ah, there it is!! Whoops. bye bye.

Picture this happening: At one point your "self" begins to break up into fragments sort of suspended before you. All these aspects of your being and personality and memory are all just floating there separate and there is no reference point of where your sense of "I' is to be found. At first a sense of panic may set in but fortunately only briefly as these fragmented images dissipate. What remains is this clarity. You see that the "I" was no thing at all in particular except the appearance of life and things as they manifest in awareness. You see that you are everything and yet at the same time, nothing at all.

This 'state" may remain or slip into the background as the sense of "I" is required to interact with the world as the world perceives you. "Hey, Dad, can you hold the bike steady while I turn the wrench to loosen this stupid bolt! You recognize that you are this thing that appears as 'Dad' and that feeling is further reinforced when the motorcycle falls off the stand and onto your foot.

So you see, the clarity comes a goes according to circumstances. It's always there as a reference point or maybe only a memory, but once seen it arises more easily especially after the oxycontin kicks in and the broken bone is set.

Appreciate Reaser

Please try to merge in the Solipsism/solopism theory

It is really the only possibility to explain "The Big Bang made YOU" °°

It is also so very simple

Nothing exists outside - - - - YOU PLEASE CATCH THAT
It's what you did with your own power

YOU are the alpha & omega

YOU decided to : Some say 'PLAY' with all that power
but I think 'exponentially increase Love' . . . you ARE that love
and you want more

It's so Beautiful

Brian : I was a little worried about my
bad english idiom but you made me happy :
No single doubt about producing all these lovely comments
Sorry to say it myself
Shame you have not the mindset to apply:
"If only One or Two readers can improve their life with my 6 words'

then it's already worthful

You made me really happy
and if to much is deleted
in my reasoning to Appreciated Reader : I DID IT MYSELF
like last week my 500cubic quantum computer Essay
Imagine your NSA would read it

I'm sad the role you got

777

PS
°° IS NO PREACHING :
FEW CHURCHES ADVOCATE THIS


WOW A R
""because it is not the kind of thing you can think about without losing it . Ah, there it is!! Whoops. bye bye.""

And this is exactly where the Sound comes in . . .
to be able to consume a little longer
next it sweet
next is is a Saturn Rocket

your bey bey each time take longer exponentially a la Fibonnacci

Sorry I said : "YOU PLEASE CATCH THAT" because YOU Sir GOT IT !!

777

Brian : why you deleted my excuses to A R ?

You decided It made no sense ?

777

777, I didn't delete your comments to Appreciative Reader. If you'd take the time to look, you'd see your comments right above your lie about me deleting your comment. You really need to get more in touch with reality. Like I said before, I'm going to delete any comment from you that is excessively incomprehensible or preachy. Stick to the subject of a post, and stop with your constant dogmatic statements about holy sound and all that crap. It gets tiresome. No one is interested in this other than you.


The diversity of commentators is an asset to this blog.

777 actually does makes sense ~ both in post_structuralist deleuzian Meaning and context: that is when juxtaposed to the perennial criticism of RS. With the same token even Rumi would be sencored. Y not live and let be and let everyone express their 5 cents, as long as they are not racists, sexists, vulgar. Describing his thoughts as crap is impolite, impatient...
Not
wuwei. Stiff tai chi.
The church must dance w the church-less.
Jazz and Classical Music.
Sometimes-not always linear prose is sterile...Most of the times non linear prose is meaningless.

Tuscon makes sense
Jesse makes sense
AP makes sense
M makes sense

Ultimately the entire text from the post to the last comment becomes one
One collaboration of ideas & thoughts

Yes to love, yes to this sweet sound
Oh Madness
Ssshhh
Listen
To the reed flute how it complaints
Lamenting its banishment from its home
Lamenting
Listen

Tucson, that was a beautiful comment. Thank you!

I find it worth preserving, that comment of yours. The sort of thing one might want to return to, going forward.

.

One conceptual take-away I found there is the interesting remark you make about with formal “practice” (as in ‘spiritual practice’) vis-a-vis enlightenment. You’re saying that the two are unrelated, but because it often happens that the latter accompanies the former, one imagines a causal relationship that does not, in fact, exist. I suppose that makes sense, because probably those who might be the most likely to have an enlightenment experience -- and I realize I’m making presumptions here about what the enlightenment experience might entail, as well as making presumptions, by taking your words at face value, about the very existence of such experience -- would also be the likeliest to engage in some form of spiritual practice.

.

You raise this interesting point about one’s sometimes (inadvertently, perhaps when engrossed in “simple tasks”) accessing this enlightenment experience without necessarily even being aware of having done that. That raises interesting questions about the nature of consciousness, and about whether enlightenment can truly be said to have occurred if one isn’t even conscious, oneself, of such having occured. Not to mention the total impossibility of verifying, even subjectively, an essentially subjective experience that one isn’t even aware of.

.

Once again, my thanks. Plenty of food for thought in that short comment of yours.

.

Two final questions I cannot resist asking : The first is about your reference, towards the end of your comment, to oxycontin (and, I suppose, to mind-altering drugs in general). I suppose you were only joking there? I ask, because just in case you’re being literal about that particular source for your experience, then I have to say I’m skeptical about any such experience. What one experiences when under the influence of mind-altering drugs is, by definition, hallucination. To read too much into hallucinations is probably unwise. To take hallucinations literally, especially drug-induced hallucination, is probably a mistake. (Or am I making too much of what was no more than a simple joke?)

.

My other question :

I’d asked this of both Osho Robbins, earlier, and of Manjit not long back. And I’ve often asked this question IRL as well. I am yet to receive an answer, I mean a first-hand answer from someone who says they’ve experienced this themselves, that does not involved all kinds of fantastic formulations like reincarnation and so forth, formulations that raise infinitely more involved questions than they actually answer.

The question is simple : Is there any use at all of having this experience? If yes, can you try to tell me, as clearly as possible, what that use might be? And if there is no use as such, then can you think of any reason at all why anyone would want to spend any time at all and any effort at all to seek out this experience? (Irrespective of whether such “seeking”, deliberate seeking that is, can ever succeed.)


And I’m not necessarily referring to some purely utilitarian “use” (although if you can point out some utilitarian use -- not some wholly circular “use” like becoming a Guru and making a handsome living [perhaps I should say ‘killing’ instead of “living”!] off one’s Master-hood, but some real concrete use -- that would be great too). For instance, what might be the “use” of a thorough understanding and appreciation of music? Leaving “circular” applications (in terms of seeking out money and fame, that sort of thing) aside, a deep appreciation itself, the pleasure one derives from such appreciation, might be its own reward, a more than ample reward. If you point simply to something like that, something like an abiding absorption, eventually, within the enlightenment experience, that would be a good enough answer. But do you?

777, thank you for your obviously heart-felt expressions of your own experience.


What you say -- or least, what I understand you to have said -- is something that, at some level, does resonate with me. In thinking of this whole spirituality business, I’ve found myself wondering (‘speculating’ might be a more appropriate term I suppose) whether losing one’s ego might not simply be the start of the process of discovery, as opposed to the climax that one usually imagines it would be. I suppose that is exactly what you’re referring to as well, that your particular Shabd Yog practice enables you to consciously hold on to and to actually appreciate, this state of no-self?


Of course all of what you as well as I say here, it presumes -- and this may be wholly unsupported presumption, as I like to keep on reminding myself when I find myself getting carried away along these lines of thought -- that all of this is real. I’m not doubting your words, nor Tucson’s, but this basic skepticism is something I cannot myself “slough off”, not unless I end up experiencing this at first hand myself!

Appreciative,

The term "enlightenment" puts too much of a burden on what I have been talking about. The word conjures up visions of the Buddha sitting in the lotus posture with a halo around his head. It may not be that. It's just a way of looking at things that transcends conventional perception. It may not be the ultimate resting place, perception... or the Answer. Maybe it's just a springboard. If my discussions are helpful, great.

You said: "Not to mention the total impossibility of verifying, even subjectively, an essentially subjective experience that one isn’t even aware of."

-- That's because it is the awareness itself. That's it. Full stop. Right there. However, you can be aware of being aware without calling it that. It's more like "aware-ing". Life is a verb, not a noun. It is not static. That is why God is not a thing found. It is the process of life, not a separate director of it.

You inquired: "Two final questions I cannot resist asking : The first is about your reference, towards the end of your comment, to oxycontin"

--You're correct. I was joking. It is easier to be in a relaxed clear state of mind when you are not in great pain. Pain brings the "I" front and center.. I hurt, owwwww!!

You asked: " Is there any use at all of having this experience?"

-- Again, I don't want to burden this discussion with "enlightenment". But yes, I think such perceptions make it easier to accept life as it comes and to instill via a "contact high", if you will, a better attitude in others which helps them. There is less aggressive pursuit of self aggrandizement as it relates to accumulation of stuff... stuff being all the things a strongly identified ego thinks it needs to be better in the eyes of itself and others, in order to have more intense sensations of fun, or to be powerful, influential, etc. There is more contentment in the moment. Not as much need to go elsewhere or get something or make something happen in order to have some peace of mind. There is not as much need to change what is happening. It is seen that change goes on of its own accord. Try it. Just sit there and see what happens. Pretty soon you'll be moving doing something. You'll just rise. The fingers will dance across the keys. whatever. You just let it be like the fool on the hill while the eyes in his head see the world spinning 'round.

Brian provocet some hilarity by writing :


"" 777, I didn't delete your comments to Appreciative Reader. If you'd take the time to look, you'd see your comments right above your lie about me deleting your comment. You really need to get more in touch with reality. ""

Calling names Sir, without reason, better no do

Every commentator types F5 ( apple Shift F5 for page -refreshin or the symbol) to see his texts and so I did

77

777, like I said, you need to get more in touch with reality. You thought I deleted your comments, even though you never looked to see whether I did this. This shows that you didn't try to get in touch with reality, you just jumped to a false conclusion. This is exactly what you and other religious believers do with God. You believe your own delusion, rather than checking facts -- which would show you that there is no evidence God exists.

A R

"No-self" needs some semantics
Best is to compare with Love, even a crush as a teenager will do,

""enables you to consciously hold on to and to actually appreciate, this state of no-self? ""

A sense of "NON-enabling is tmho primordial - doesn't work often

------
No AP , I can't - When it happens you can only start dancing because of HIS Beauty

2 times I met people on so low social standing, . . then HE gave me insight information
and I "saw" ( participated ) was One, . wit such unbelievable high circumstances of a 'Creating Power",
higher than Arch Angels, and She creates Universes in gorgeous splendor, for The Almighty
and She had 'expressed' a desire to go higher INTO That
and so she was born here like that
You can't phantom the Beauty I saw

BTW : Keep in mind that these things go unplanned but they peak mostly in meditation

These peaks, . . . in the beginning are making one floating 30 cm above the trottoir ,. . .
next a ferocious ego battle comes up , only to win using The Master's Simran of 5 loaded Words
like in most fairy tales or "Dune" or Tolkien' Gollem, Russian Pilgrim etc

I will not introduce what Br calls preaching : I m on [email protected] ( not gmail )

You asked aboutr Advantages, No death, Total Sweetness because of what Im not allowed anymore to express here, ,
unattachment, invulnerability, to be never alone, to be loved all the time and feel it,
to love all the time without a need to be loved-back because you hv all that already, . . , good health, refined taste for some arts, special info about Who am I, what I was . . where it goes

777


What about death, Tucson?

Would you say this … this clarity, would you say it makes it any easier to deal with death? Might it make it any easier to deal with the passing of a near one? And might it, perhaps, make it any easier to eventually face one’s own personal death?

.

I suppose a lessening of the uncontained frenzy for achieving and gathering, that you speak of and that so afflicts people in general, is something to be valued.

On the other hand, that is also achieved by other means. Sometimes it is a question simply of one’s personality, one’s inherent drives. Other times -- and I can attest to this latter myself, at first hand -- it is simply a question of understanding thoroughly, at a purely conceptual level, the utter futility of the grasping instinct.

Survival is fine, and so is comfort, even luxury to an extent, why not? But beyond that, compulsive grasping is foolish and counter-productive. That even the unenlightened (that is, those who haven’t achieved this experiential clarity you speak of) may, with some introspection, discover for themselves.

.

But yes, if this clarity can help temper the pain of death -- the passing of a loved one and also, eventually, one’s own inevitable extinguishment -- then that, certainly, would truly be something really, really, really useful, even priceless, something that is well worth seeking out, well worth going to a great deal of trouble for.

(I remember Osho Robbins speaking of this to me, some months back, in a different thread. At that time the discussion was purely academic, and death simply an abstraction, at least for me. I had theorized away, I remember, in that discussion, about it being possible to dissipate the pain of death by other, more mundane, means. Much as I now speak to you now about it being possible to temper the grasping instinct by other, more mundane means. And of course, what I’d said then, about death, is true enough, at one level. But recent personal circumstances have ended up making the subject of death more personal for me, with greater immediacy and urgency, death is now something I have seen up close myself. And the death of a loved one can shake up your complacency like nothing else can.)


Can your “clarity” help do that, Tucson? Can it offer comfort, do you think, in the face of death, others' as well as one's own, when even a thorough conceptual understanding of the essentially transitory nature of life fails to offer real solace?

777, I hear you.

I’d asked Tucson about what actual use enlightenment might be, and in response to that question you speak about : (a) Deathlessness (by which I suppose you mean some way to overcome the pain of death?) ; (b) Never having to feel alone ; (c) Invulnerability (from, I suppose, emotional ups and downs reflecting the vicissitudes of life?) ; and (d) an ability to love others truly unconditionally, a truly disinterested and yet sincere love.

Your (e), that is, “good health”, “refined taste for art” et cetera, I’ll take with a pinch of salt. Because it is clear that those need not necessarily follow this enlightenment, this clarity, this no-self. And equally, it is clear that these things can be had, with some effort and some luck, by all kinds of people who have no inkling at all of these apparently deeper things.

But that last is only a minor quibble. The first four, (a) through (d), they’re quite adequate!

Absolutely, that is a truly formidable repertoire of “uses” that you’ve lined up there! With such inducements, no one can claim to be short of reasons to seek out this state, this realization!

My only question is : Can you say you have personally found these things yourself, 777, to your satisfaction?

Mere theory serves no purpose. Reading about this and repeating what you’ve read is pointless.

But if you can tell me that you have yourself, personally, and to your own personal satisfaction, found these things, then sure, I’ll take you at face value. You’ve often spoken here about having accessed the inner sound that your tradition teaches. If you can further attest that you’ve personally experienced these four classes of attainments that you speak of here, then absolutely, ‘true’ or not, ‘real’ or not, and irrespective of whether what you see within you is truly a reflection of the world without, I'd say that at least for you personally, the time and effort you’ve spent in your spiritual endeavor have been truly worth it.

(Provided, of course, that this is no passing thing. Provided these attributes you speak of stay with one, and provided they do truly offer solace when solace is most needed.)

Bump!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...