Instant enlightenment. Guaranteed. Just read this.

Before I proceed to enlighten you through a few well-chosen paragraphs, side-stepping all those ridiculous disciplines, such as meditation, that usually are regarded as necessary to achieve this elevated understanding, my inner attorney demands that I add some metaphorical fine print to the title of this blog post:

First, you should indeed soon be enlightened as to the ultimate nature of the cosmos. However, don't expect that this will be, well, what you expect.

Second, my guarantee is related to my just-mentioned "first." Have no doubt that my words will take you to the furthest reaches of reality. But if you anticipate what this experience will be like, I can't guarantee that my guarantee will match yours.

That said, let's get on with the saying.

Which begins with some seeing and hearing -- the first few minutes of a You Tube video, "Carl Sagan on 'God' and 'Gods," that I came across courtesy of Pharyngula.

 

Sagan points out that if we ask how the cosmos came to be, and someone claims God created it, the next question is "And what created God?" If the answer is that God has always existed, then why not save a step and simply say, "The cosmos always has existed"?

Which brings me to my promised enlightenment.

All you need to do is this: ponder the fact that existence always has existed. That is, something always has existed.

Even if you're scientifically minded and envision universe particles popping out of a cosmic quantum vacuum, "quantum" and "vacuum" are something, not nothing.

Don't be half-assed with your pondering.

Stick with it until you reach a brain freeze, an existential brick wall, the place where your train of thought crashes into an abyss of What the Fuck?! and you find yourself in the engineer's seat staring straight at an unfathomable black hole of pitch black mystery.

Get to that place.

Feel what it's like. Doesn't matter for how long. A milli-second will do. That sensation of Ahhhhhh... Ohhhhhhh... Ooooooohh... or whatever -- that's enlightenment.

Guaranteed.

Because you've grasped what the endpoint of knowledge, of experience, of living, of dying, of reality, is. It doesn't matter that you haven't traversed all of the territory in between here and there.

You've gotten an intuitive feel for Existence exists. Amazing! If that feeling came to be continous, you'd be continuously enlightened.

In some traditions, "enlightenment" is said to be the recognition that there's no such thing as enlightenment. That fits well with how I see the situation.

Enlightenment is like Wile E. Coyote running into a rock wall while chasing the Road Runner, something he did a lot of in the cartoons that I avidly watched in my childhood.

He'd get flat as a pancake. Then slowly peel himself off the wall and pop back into his three-dimensional self.

Existence is that wall. Enlightenment is that pancaking. It's the realization that, in the end, there's nothing to realize.

Existence is. Just as we are. Existence always is.

Whether we are also... that depends on how we view "we." The atoms and energy which comprise "me" likely always will exist in some sense, since there is no place for existence to depart to (given that any possible destination would exist).

Early on every human is conditioned to see causes and effects operating everywhere. Positing "God" is a way for us to feel that we've figured out the ultimate cause. Yet as Sagan says, this is an illusory explanation. On the other side of "God" is stark existence, causeless and effectless.

If this sort of pondering leaves a chill in your spine, bodily or philosophically, this is a sign of your enlightenment.

But even if you feel nothing, you're still enlightened if you appreciate the mysterious beauty of boundless existence.

This can't be experienced, understood, or known. All we can do is know in a knowledge that is beyond knowing, This can't be experienced or understood.

 

Comments

[[email protected]]

I understand the Wile E Coyote principle of reality; I wonder, though, which part is more enlightening, or hurts more: hitting the wall, or peeling off it?

[jon weiss]

Coyote?

Funny. Thanks for that.

Stark existence is, for us fleshly, relational creatures, a sensual play...no getting around that. We all grew up in the intimacy of a womb. From there ---Eyes, ears, touch, taste, smell. Then, later, in the story the magnification of those (aka Hubble telescope, microphones, electron microscopes, etc). The "wall"....is our fleshly brain's limitation. Thanks be to Mom and Dad.

[Juliano]

This is Goddess enlightenment, that the cycles of life and death are sacred, and eternal.

You know the famous story in the 'creation myth' of the Western world, the Garden of Eden. It's all there, but in that story's case the patriarchal warriors who wrote it seek not to encourage enlightenment but to enslave.

So let me...enlighten you the Goddess's deeper song beneath the text which via propaganda sought to subvert the very ancient images and meaning:
The Tree bears the sacred entheogenic fruit of the Goddess which is the fruit of enlightenment, because when you eat it you very deeply experience the eternal nature of yourself and nature and all of reality.

The Serpent has always been very close to the Goddess, and has many associations, an important one is symbolizing how nature eternally renews itself, for the snake sloughs off old skin and there is new skin underneath.

WHEN you understand the sacredness of life and our eternal nature which does not contradict life and death is when you realize the wonder of nature--how it is a sacred living garden~~~the fullness of creation utterly interelated with the whole universe.

Beautiful healing article!! :)

[Dungeness]

Sagan points out that if we ask how the cosmos came to be, and someone claims God created it, the next question is "And what created God?" ... Early on every human is conditioned to see causes and effects operating everywhere. Positing "God" is a way for us to feel that we've figured out the ultimate cause. Yet as Sagan says, this is an illusory explanation.

Objection, your honor! Even an inner channeled attorney can drum up something dubious and circular. He races down yet another cul-de-sac in pursuit of the ever-receding mirage of phenomenological proof. He tries to extrapolate from this level to a transcendent, primal truth which can't be understood or circumscribed by causality at all.

Enlightenment is like Wile E. Coyote running into a rock wall while chasing the Road Runner, something he did a lot of in the cartoons that I avidly watched in my childhood.

I loved that cartoon. Admit it, doesn't everyone always want to identify with Road R. You may see a more than a bit of Wile C. in oneself but you still adore Road R.
In the mystic realm, the rock wall could be a metaphor for what happens to our limiting, 'wily' self in its quest for truth. Wily C. lies in wait with his ruses and traps but truth remains elusive.

I always loved it when Road R. would draw the
outline of a tunnel entrance and then pass easily through it. Wily C. of course tries to jet in after him. The stubborn, arrogant intellect just pancakes itself trying to get its arms around the real nature of truth.
Fortunately, we can peel ourselves off the false walls and make another run at it.

Existence is that wall. Enlightenment is that pancaking. It's the realization that, in the end, there's nothing to realize.

Or maybe the pancaking is just our false perception of existence. Some, for instance, might only be bowing down at the altar of one of Science's celebrity priests du jour. Others may just meekly allow some other "churched or un-churched" dogma to dictate what's reasonable to believe. The pancaking could even be self-inflicted "cuz everyone knows" there are limitations on what mere mortals can hope to learn about existence.

But even if you feel nothing, you're still enlightened if you appreciate the mysterious beauty of boundless existence.
...
This can't be experienced, understood, or known. All we can do is know in a knowledge that is beyond knowing, This can't be experienced or understood.

How apropos that Road R. always uttered "Beep Beep" as he disappeared into the tunnel...

[Mike Williams]

From "Guru Tegh Bahadur, A Biography"

Balwant Singh Anand, 1979,
Sterling, Delhi

"It was accepted tradition of the Sikhs that each Guru had the exclusive authority and the final say in the nomination of his successor. This right could not be challenged by anyone. It was not a hereditary office; no son could claim gur-gaddi as a matter of right. Both the selection and nomination was made by the Guru; he could select his son or if it so pleased him, he could select anyone outside the family. The age of the successor was not considered of any consequence; the Guru could nominate an aged person, a young man or even a child. Each successive Guru of the Sikhs nominated his successor and once nominated, the new Guru was accepted by the followers as the Supreme religious leader and the final authority in all matters pertaining to every aspect of life.

But this does not mean that there were no other claimants to the throne or that there were no bickerings, no amity feuds, no disgruntled persons. It is sad but true that the families of the Gurus were not above power-politics; there were rivalries, feuds, bitterness and jealousy as elsewhere. When Guru Nanak nominated Guru Angad as his successor, his two sons Sri Chand and Lakhmi Das were deeply disappointed. Guru Angad's son Datu would not forgive his father for nominating Guru Amar Das and went to the extent of attacking the Guru. Bibi Bhani conspired to see that her husband (Guru) Ram Das was nominated by her father. When Guru Ram Das nominated his second son Arjun Dev as Guru, Prithi Chand became the bitterest enemy of the Guru and went to the extent of conspiring to kill his son, the future Guru Hargobind, by poison or snake bite.

Having lost all hope of becoming the Guru, he was willing to stoop to the meanest trick to have his son Meharban ascend the throne. And when Guru Hargobind nominated his grandson Har Rai (the second son of Baba Gurditta) in preference to his elder brother Dhirmal, the latter continued to conspire and fight all his life against both Guru Harkrishan and Guru Tegh Bahadur.

Moreover, when Guru Har Rai nominated his younger son, Harkrishan as the Guru in preference to his elder son Ram Rai, the latter was so infuriated that he approached Emperor Aurangzeb to dethrone his younger brother and to issue orders in his favour.

In short each Guru had to face collateral rivalry and sometimes political interference. Moreover, each succeeding Guru had to cope with the legacy of domestic and political feuds inherited from his predecessor."

[joshua]

As enlightenment cannot be lost , it cannot be found . It was never lost as it is always present in its full glory . In every way you perceive it isnt , it is . Now and now and as the perfect easy gift . Dont swim , float , although swimming is fine too :) Be Still and know ... I am god . With a small g and ias you wont-will be there anymore and wont be concerened with syntax or words , although they dont stop enightenment , nothing does , not even nothing . lol shhhh dont tell anyone else .. Its a secret ha ha .. Not really . Its screaming from every percievable possibility ..even unenlightenment is only a human idea . Not even believing it isnt will change anything . Its all still perfect .. Remember .. Who cares if you do or dont .. Its impossible to be unenlightened . Only unenlightened people will tell you otherwise ..but they are really enlightened too ..its only play-acting when they do that . He he ha ha tiddly tum bum poo willy pee he he he ha ha ha