Water by the River

There is something called Tummo in Tibetan Buddhism (Six Yogas of Naropa), a practice that influences the subtle energy system and boosts awakened nonconceptual states, in later phases nondual awakened states. And various other energetic pratices. Without the foundation of Trekchö (or cutting the conceptual) mindstream, or something like that, I can not imagine that a mainly energetic practice is as efficient as these practices combined. Both combined are powerful tools, which I can confirm from personal experience. With Kriya itself, I don't have experience besides a few books I read. But the energetic techniques have strong parallels.

Pretty much every meditation traditions differentiates between the preliminary awakenings/enlightenments (both words used) and the final big shift. The former ones prepare the mindstream for finally understanding what lies "beyond" (called Final Enlightenment or Great Enlightenment in some traditions). To grasp what is beyond the boundless nondual field, one first needs to have experiences of that boundless nondual field (called Enlightenments or Awakenings). The totality can not be grasped from a partialized/dual perspective. These initial nondual unity experiences are the unity of a still existing separate self (however refined/empty that is) with the boundless nondual field. That ripens then towards True Nonduality with no separate-self remnants. And in these awakened nondual states the big shift can happen.

The books from Daniel Brown. Good starting point is pointing out the Great Way, then Heart Drops of Kun tu bZang po. Wilber, One Taste.

Somehow that reminds me of: Nietzsche: God is dead. God: Nietzsche is dead Ever considered there is something beyond your current level of Awakening and Understanding? Or do you declare you are done and seen it all? No more n+1 Awakenings with maybe the chance that something new shows up, something which pretty much all who came before proclaimed possible? Your style of argument has reduced itself to claims without any arguments. Ever noticed? Sure, not everything can be put in language, but a lot can. And for that which can not be put into language because the referents of experience are not there, the injunction/experiment to give the refent-experience can be given. Yes, and I know, I am not AWAKE. Whatever that currently is.

I have no proof concerning the Rainbow Body, yet I personally believe its legit in some cases. Essentially that happens from longterm Dzogchen Trekchö/Togyal-practice, which is essentially stabilizing enlightened/awakened states when the visual field has become nondual, infinite and mere groundless appearance (Tibetans call that clear light. Very similiar to Bucklands or Haari Aaltos descriptions of divine refined perception) on a sustained basis. Basically Full Enlightenment, and living from that state in a stabilized way in daily life for a long time (Ken Wilber peak-plateau-permanent).

All good and valid points you write and ask. Finally, you have to get there to fully answer that for you. The Absolute is unmistaken. Depends on the definition of Nothingness. Most cases claiming No-Self, or Emptiness, or anything like that is not the full Nothingness, but "something/somebody (quite subtle)" perceiving some "emptiness" or "void". (That something goes from identifying with emptiness instead of the persona to being in nondual Unity with the field and the separate-self having become so empty that it is just a very subtle feeling and nothing else). That is not the true nondual realization or True No-Self. That of course sparks a nightmare of not matching definition. A good pointer to the Absolute is Nothingness in the meaning of not describable in any way (no opposite), which is the same as truly infinite. Some call it Infinity, but that can also be something else. Even before having these realizations in place: There is some logic to the intuition that when there is literally nothing there as separate-anything (no center, lense, feeling of a separate anyting), or in other words impersonal empty and in nondual Unity with the everything arising, then from this boundless nondual Unity the Absolute can be intuited or realized what is beyond that. Because how can one understand what the nondual bubble of the visual field is (or what is beyond it) if it is not already nondual? That beyond is NOT consciousness (of something), because there is nothing there to be consciousness of. Consciousness can arise in IT/Absolute/You when something manifests or moves. And that can be very subtle. It has the capacity for awareness, but only if something arises. That is what he means with the following: He uses here the term Infinite Consciousness as the container of manifestation. It is a question of how to use the terms. I have read Bucklands book, and his term/realization Parabrahman fits nicely to the Absolute. Before that (or a stage below) in his system comes Brahman, or the totality of manifestation, Ken Wilbers upmost lower causal. He wants to avoid that people imagine a dry nothing as the Absolute when using the term Nothingness. Nothingness correctly used as pointer implies this Pure Divinity aspect of Infinite Potential for manifestation. And here he says that Nothingness is not IT. On which I agree, because Nothingness is only a pointer, and used in this way it isn't IT. The Absolute is, as Nagarjuna has already defined it millenia ago in the Madhyamaka totally undefinable, without opposite, always present. So technically, it is not even as Nothingness. And Buckland equates the Absolute with Pure Divinity (another pointer signifier, pointing to a referent that is a realization that a being can have). That is why the pointer Nothingness should be balanced with the pointer Infinite Potential if there is a risk of mistaking it for nothing/emptiness/void. Yet, they are all only pointers (including pure divinity) to the referent. Yes, pretty confusing. Because the terms (like Nothingness, Absolute, Pure Divinity, and so on) are not defined, and used differently by different authors. What all agree on: For the Absolute to be realized the separate-self-arisings need to go/transcended/cut off/ died to on the way there a Nondual Infinite Unity develops including all that is arising (Enlightenments, Awakenings along the path) And from this boundless nondual awakened state the Absolute beyond it can be realized (Full Enlightenment, knowing what one truly is, sudden shift or insight what Reality or oneself truly is. Final, and the rest is relative stuff that can be explored). The Absolute is unchanging, uncreated, timeless, infinite and so on, and contains all the rest of relative manifestation which is in nondual unity with it, and of the same essence. So from there on, it is all relative or manifested stuff. That becomes clear with that realization. And with that realization, one can go live ones life in peace, reorient the invidual body-mind top to bottom to confirm to that realization in daily life, and if one wants go exploring the endless wonders of manifestation or its manifestation mechanisms, or help others, or go grow a beautiful garden. In other words, live pretty happily ever after. Those who have not seen the end of the path as that beyond all changing states need an endless further ladder of higher awakenings/states/experiences/understandings/whatever (and of course proclaiming these as superior to finally getting rid of all the ignorance covering the Absolute/ones True Being) to ease the suffering and grasping. Which in my humble opinion describes the show going on here quite well.

Well, I understand and agree to all what LuciaLorn writes. The are Awakenings/Enlightenments towards the Shift to Full Enlightenment, and fully realizing what one is. Before the full shift, these insights are still interpreted through the lenses of a separate-self/agent/lense/filter, however subtle that may be. Most traditions clearly have this order of Awakenings/Enlightenments (realizing facets of the Absolute), which then culminates in Full Enlightenment, or understanding the elephant fully by being it. The rest is then just relative stuff to explore (or not). Ralston is clearly writing from Full Enlightenment. That decisive deep shift or Realization is indeed not gradual as the Awakenings/Enlightenments before that. And it is unmistaken.

If the imaginative capacity goes so far into the schizophrenic that it reaches the description of sentence 1 and 2, one would probably have to admit that the question at the end should be considered to be answered towards the positive.

That quote from Lucia Lorn is spot on. I like the text and her statements. It may seem that Nothingness gets emphasized, but only to avoid any projection of remaining separate-self elements on the Absolute. Which is indeed rampant here. And does cause and will cause more suffering than necessary. For the Absolute, it has a precise definition: Take away all relative manifestation, manifestation of any kind, no arisings at all, and the Absolute is still perfectly "there", like it always is, always was, and ever will be. Timeless, eternal, infinite, the only "thing/non-thing" there is and ever could be, no "other besides" it, One without a second. That is what is fundamental. More fundamental than the relative manifestation, which can be gone. The relative manifestations/arisings arise in in the Absolute as it (nondual, same essence). And if that realization is always available for a being, that is the summum bonum. With Nothingness I don't mean something limited to the fully empty states like Nirvikalpa (Wilber causal states/stages for example, deep sleep, and so on) and so on, but realizing that Infinite Always Here Truth while the world & visual field is there & active and maintaining it while doing so, or True Nondual states. Of course, the Absolute is also present in fully empty states (causal states) by definition (see below). With True Nondual States I don't mean Unity states with separate-self elements still going (these are also already nondual, but with separate-self-elements still going on). But fully empty nondual states, having passed the causal/Nothingness Gate, no separate-self left. Concerning the ring and the gold example: What sense does it make calling/equating the ring (relative manifestation) the "Absolute", which is defined as everpresent and unchanging and always true? The Ring is not always the case! When the Absolute is supposed to be Truth (defined as always the case), it has to be unchanging and always here, never not here. And IT indeed is.... Calling the relative Absolute is technically wrong, because it is not unchanging and always the case. The relative is contained within the Absolute and is of the same essence, like the ring and gold example. Sure that Absolute (or Nothingness or Being or whatever one wants to call it) has potential for awareness/sentience if something arises again, and the potential to manifest that. And infinite intelligence and love, and so on. But first and foremost the Absolute is that which it always is, timeless. And then comes the properties of that which it manifests, and the ways of doing so. When describing gold, we can say it has the potential to form a ring. But first and foremost, it is gold. Most beings already confuse themself with the ring, and can benefit from pointing to the gold. More than being pointed towards how that the ring is made/manifested, which intelligence made it, about other bigger rings, the love for the ring and how other rings are manifested/imagined, n+1. But the gold: That gold which is always eternally the case right here right now, never not been. Which is by the way the textbook definition for Ultimate Truth: Always true or the case. The Relative is not always the case, and therefor not ultimately true. Truth = that which is the case. But to make sure that one really becomes that on a deep identity level shift with no separate-self-elements (ring-elements) still left projecting onto properties of the Absolute (gold), Nothingness is a near perfect term. That is why the Nothingness/empty/impersonal/silent aspect gets emphasized in all meditation traditions, because if that is not realized (or become), one is not what one truly is, but still ignorant with separate-self-arisings blocking the full realization, which makes it impossible to "touch" it and rest in it stable in daily life. So used with that meaning, Nothingness emphasizes these aspects of the Absolute that one needs to fully realize it. Or let the separate-self finally and truly die. That is the price to pay. Which only seems like a price before it happens. If that is refused and belittled, or declared outright non-existant, suffering will go on. Selling Water by the River

If these passing states are all one has, and "touching" the Absolute as ones True Being by just "feeling" into oneself and into Infinite Reality (when Its presence "seems" lost, which of course it never is, but it can be covered under various "clouds" of separate-self-arisings) is not possible, clinging and suffering in circles is unavoidable. And to make onself a bit more comfy in that misery, various coping-ideologies come handy... Until that becomes also tiring. Or this life comes to a conclusion.

Yes, beautifully written. Love is the force that lets the universe grow in complexity until it has grown enough in complexity to realize itself in its beings. Love pulls the manifestation back to its source. It is the arrow of the universe to ever-growing more complexity. When an awakened being focuses in on a part of its field of vision, it finds itself in a nondual way "in" the arising and also love in and as the essence of these arisings. There is no other. All of that "hovers" in the infinite silent pure consciousness of being. "where there is an other there is fear". And where there is no other, there is only love.

Maybe that analogy helps: All relative (any manifestation/arising/anything) can disappear (and does in certain states, deep sleep, Nirvikalpa, at least for the invidual perspective/being in Indras Net, but that suffices to understand it), and the Absolute is still there. The Absolute can be without the relative (or manifestation/arising), but the relative can not be without the Absolute. That is a very clear realization that can be had. A metaphor: The essence of the ring (relative) is gold (absolute). There is nothing but gold all the time. But the ring can be gone/dead/destroyed if molten, leaving its reality (the gold) unchanged in essence. Always througout at each moment is only the Absolute (gold). The ring/Relative is a manifestation/arising of the gold/Absolute, a modulation of it arising within it, as it, nondual. The Absolute and the relative are not on the same ontological level. One is more fundamental than the other. And deviating from the ring/gold-example, the Absolute/Being also is potentially aware if something arises. One can destroy each and any manifestation/universe/relative, and the Absolute would be just fine, eternally silent, empty and groundless, unchanging, infinite and eternal, absolute unmanifested infinite potential. Pure empty infinite Awareness/Being, unaware of itself if nothing arises. "Until" it casts itself out again... And btw., that is not philosophy, but an actual realization that every being can potentially have, this life or the next.

For sure a valid experience description. The bold markings are by me. Merging implies a Unity = something merges with something. And has an experience. The Absolute by definition is always right here right know, and is either known/understood/realized, or covered under clouds of ignorance or mistaken (separate) identity. The Absolute (Reality itself) is not affected wether love arises in the mindstream of a being or not. Equating the Absolute with anything, be it an experience, a certain state, love, bliss, unity, whatever, n+1, anything non-permanent (aka anything at all) is... not the Absolute in which and as which all of that arises in a nondual way. When talking about anything specific we are talking (maximum, if at all) about one of the first "roll-out" elements of the Absolute doing its job of manifesting a manifested reality WITHIN ITSELF. Space, time, dimensions, love, bliss, subtle arisings, and so on... Spiritual Teachers and Traditions tell since the dawn of time about the utmost importance love, and how it is divine. Because love IS a fundamental property of any manifestation/universe. Love stabilizes awakened states, opens awakened states, and is definitely there to awe-inspiring degrees at the higher realms/states of reality. If one is so inclined, one could even say the essence of everything IS love. There is no manifestation without love as its essence, saturating it, pulling it all back to realize its source. So a necessary ground for every manifestation, showing its essential unity. Yet, it arises IN the Absolute. Where else could it arise? It is of the same essence as the Absolute, but WITHIN IT. And if that Absolute is not realized and always available right here right now as ones True Essence... one tends to talk about the first roll-outs of manifestation, the highest archetypes, the first arisings necessary to get a manifestation going... Selling Water .... PS; And talking about Absolutes in the plural, like x/y/z "is an absolute", is a joke in itself. The Absolute is One without a second. It is not even one. It is that which has no opposite. And no plural. All the rest are manifestations within it, tendencies, or primal manifestation archetypes.

How do/can you know? Met & checked with everyone personally on the planet?

Yes. And what is before these distinction (Consciousness, Truth and Love)? Before anything arises that a distinction could be made of? Before the capability of making a distinction (which is itself an arising moving within Reality) is there? Before the referents (Consciousness, Truth and Love) of these distinctions even appear/arise/manifest in the first place? There are states in which none of these distinctions arise, nor their referents (Consciousness, Truth and Love) , like deep unaware Sleep, forms of Nirvikalpa and other states. And the Absolute still is, always.

Sure, love is among the first manifestations when a world is manifested, just because something arises and that arises in Unity/Underlying Love. Can't be any different. For anything to arise space/time is imagined among the first arisings/archetypes, and that always includes primordial love. Where is love in deep unaware sleep? Still a potential, one of the first arisings to manifest if a worlds gets imagined again, or anything arises at all... That answers the ontological primacy of Infinite Reality/Absolute vs. its first manifestations/archetypes/arisings. Reality can be perfectly unaware of itself when nothing arises... yet with the potential of awareness. The Absolute is that which is always the case, even in deep unaware sleep. The Truth is always the case. Reality is always the case. And that Reality can’t be described with anything (because it is infinite), only pointed towards. And it can be realized as ones True Being, and then pointed to. But it can not be labeled with its first manifesting archetypes x/y/z. IT is beyond that. And if that is not known, realized or understood, because the Absolute is still loaded with properties and not really the infinite empty Absolute, well maybe... it is not the end of the story.

He would probably think the same of you...

Hear hear. "Confuse the state that arises [when they have an enlightenment (or awakening)] with the consciousness itself..." That (mistaken) move is as old as the spiritual traditions themselves. It is descriped in varying degrees of clarity & complexity in all of them. It all depends on how much the (separate-self) structure interpreting the experience/state has become empty/impersonal/transcended/seen/made subject/filter/lense->object and so on...

Yes to that on an absolute level/perspective, big question mark on the relative/appearance level. And maybe God/Reality arranged it (just to have fun) in such a way that from a relative perspective it looks very much like life-bardo-life-.... and so on, with all the Karma/learning experiences over many lifes, stored in some kind of Kosmic Memory, forming a kind of soul? Sure all relative/appearance, but everything else you perceive/think/feel is also relative/appearance. And as long as one doesn't rest quite permanently in Impersonal Nondual Suchness, the relative does look & feel very real, and can make quite some (emotional) impression... So in my opinion, a wise perspective on Karma (and reincarnation): "Although my view is higher than the sky, My respect for the cause and effect of actions is as fine as grains of flour." Padmasambhava There are endless reports (over all centuries and cultures) ranging from meditation experiences (for example of Storehouse Consciousness and many realms/dimensions), to Out-of-body-experiences (experiencing for example after death realms, or storehouse-consciousness for these soul-units), or Near-Death-Experiences, all showing some of the relative truths of all of that. Among the best stuff I have seen so far, combined with some legit Enlightenment-Experiences, is the material/books/videos from Jürgen Ziewe: https://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multidimensional-Man/Astral_Travel_and_life_after_death.html And as Bazooko said correctly: ALL of that is manifested/incarnated/imagined right here and right now, including the imagined past/history/Karma/Reincarnation/all of it. But that would be the Absolute Truth. And as long as the relative/manifestation side has emotional impact, philosophizing from and flying high more towards the Absolute Side of Truth is dangerous terrain... as recently demonstrated here quite impressively. Water by the River

The answer on the little Koans you gave me is: chuckle. But a loving one. And concerning the years and hours practiced: That is no lie. If you also claim clairvoyance besides Enlightenment, I would check the clair-part of the voyance. For self-enquiry: sure, done for a loooong time. Never found myself. Only everything, and the chuckle. And now something for you my imaginary friend: Sovereignity as God: yes. But also skillfull means, humility, love and compassion with all children of your Being, to the best of your abilities. So lets smoke the pipe of peace. I am happy that you are here. And if its in your nature to sometimes do the Vajrakilaya-thing, there are plenty of conceptual God-Egos still proclaiming a not really finished Realization to grind the axe upon. Water by the River

Yes, but no sane spiritual meditation system promotes nationalistic war. Only sick ones. And sick ones dont persist. That is not sustainable for a transcendence-oriented spiritual tradition. And that is what happened with Zen at war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War Because nationalistic war causes suffering and is not done because of love for the whole but only for a part, if at all.

I know you mean well. And from your writings (concerning waking up and the Absolute/Being) and behaviour (the deeper loving elements that shine through) you are enlightened in my perspective. And luckily you are here in this forum, holding up the flag of real Enlightenment and not just some preliminary awakenings, or even worse: just mere conceptual convictions/belief-systems. It would be a much darker place without you. But Enlightenment doesn't stop the Enlightened Ones to make errors in the relative realm (for example in drastic cases: Zen at war, Adi Da cult, endless list). Your judging of Awakening based on writings is at least in some cases not possible. In most cases one can see fast who knows what one is writing/talking about, and who doesn't. But it is not possible in all cases. Meditation time? Didn't count, but well over 10.000 hours in nearly 20 years. In the beginning mainly sitting, but soon taking it off the pillow with Mahamudra/Dzogchen. And the practice and being in these states continues, with a (much) higher focus and priority than studies/books. Just because it is the most beautiful and blissful activity I can engage in. So here we align also. As actually in nearly all points as soon as we actually start exchanging perspectives, and assumptions get reduced. Actual practice vs. books/theory: It was clear for me from very early on that only (!) meditation time counts, and time in certain awakened states. And the reading and books are just for enabling that, and for choosing the right system, and then actually practicing/doing it. That is why the main message in many posts I wrote is: practice. I read Ken Wilber when starting with all of that, and that is one of his main messages: Actual practice transforms, theory does not. You are unshakable in your True Essence and Being because you are in contact with That (or better the old "separate-you" has died into That) which is unmistaken always here and always true and never can change. You don't need any external validation on THAT. As I have written severeal times: Awake enough also here on this side to communicate from That and not need any external validation. No sources, no books, no authorities, no nothing required. But I think it makes sense to argue and debate ones perspective with what humanity has already tried, experienced and then also summarized in certain sources/traditions/practice systems. It flatters me that you assume I am smart enough to write the stuff I write without certain Awakenings and Realizations. I can assure you, I am not that smart. It is not that I just copy & paste this theory/books/sources without having the releveant experiences/awakenings to speak authentically from that. I agree that would be one of the worst, strange and harming things that one could do. We align in that attitude because I also debated the most obvious (and most narcissistic Ego=God cases) of that endeavour also. And my expression of THAT is different than yours, because It runs through my relative self and form, same as it does for you. You write you had the "wiring for Enlightenment". I agree. Most of us don't have it in such degree (including myself), and need effective views and practice-systems, and lots of practice. I believe that influences the way I write, on what, and how. I expect that I will tend to reduce my engagement in the "more-awakened-than-thou" dances & chuckles, because as written before I consider that at some point as some kind of "less-than-beneficial-activity" for everyone involved. Like I wrote many times, the best indicator for awakening is the conduct with which one lives ones life. The openness, love, non-suffering and grace that embodied awake Truth can enable. That shows more than anything else how much Truth has permeated the relative self. And having said that: I will speak more from the heart (although I sometimes tend to feel "ego-show-starts-here" doing that), but grant me some quoting/sources without falling out of grace in your perspective. Water by the River

No, It was in a normal company. I had regular business trips in the years following that in India, so it was interesting to see how it developed.

Hampi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampi Sinhagad Fort in Pune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinhagad Gol Gumbaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Gumbaz And if you are there a few months, then the Lonely Planet up & down & back again. I worked in Pune for half a year at a time when the majority at traffic lights were bicycles nearly 20 years ago. Nowadays its a lot more scooters and cars, and much less bicycles in the big cities... Quite a lot of progress, but still shocking poverty and lots of slums. Yet the people are mostly very nice. Water by the River