HereNowThisMoment

I'm not too familiar with psychedelics but while I was on Amazon a while back looking at the table of contents for Pursuing Consciousness by Peter Ralston I noticed a subheading that said "An Acid Trip Is Not Enlightenment." (I just double checked now to make sure that's what it was called). I don't have any experience with them, but I personally can't see how a substance could cause a drastic paradigm shift of any real value without grounding it in deeper consciousness work, but I digress. That being said, maybe that will help accepting that experience as what it was. Enlightenment isn't an altered state of consciousness, just a shifted paradigm with regards to how one relates to their experience. I'm also not convinced that one full-blown enlightenment experience is necessary, I've had my fair share of insights/aha moments while doing contemplation work, but I can't point at any one experience and say "that's it!" (Some stand out for sure, but still didn't see unicorns and rainbows the way that everyone would have you believe lol). I don't think the experiences matter that much, they're just another experience, there's no point in clinging onto anything. Even so however, I've had a tremendous change in how I see life, interactions, etc. The more of this work that I do the more that I'm convinced there is no "there" to go. It, as a destination or mental state, never arrives because it was never really missing. This work is peeling away all of the false beliefs of who you think you are and looking for what is constant and as we accumulate new experiences, roles, etc. we have to continually realize that none of those things are what we are. Even so I still tend to try to rationalize what this experience of consciousness is though I will never truly understand it. Think about it this way, ultimately what is revealed is that we are the stillness in which and out of which all things arise, then how can it be possible that we need one specific esoteric moment to become conscious? We are already conscious. This is already it. Saying that one moment is needed is the same as saying that you are unconscious until you have one moment that makes you conscious. It is the relationship with consciousness and the idea of a separate self that changes with this work. I went through a period of deep nihilism for several months after starting to explore this topic. At first it was all well and good because I didn't really grasp the magnitude of what was being explored. As time went on though I became much more angry and depressed. Prior to taking up this work I was an extremely competitive person, I always had a high sense of self worth, etc. and I was already at a low point because I had encountered my first large "failure" in life around this time. It was something that was inextricably tied to my identity for a few years and to have that "taken away" already left me feeling lost. Growing up, people often told that I would be someone "important" someday so to hear "you do not exist" only added to my anger and confusion. I was angry at the world, it's kinda laughable now but I really was going through a period of time where I simultaneously didn't care about anything but also wanted to change everything about the world. Over the next few months though I started to accept things as they are instead of needing them to be a certain way. I saw that I misunderstood what was meant by saying "you do not exist" and found solace. The anger that I felt and the need for validation disappeared. That being said, I still try to pursue certain things in my life circumstances that I want to but the driving force behind doing it is much different now.

@electroBeam You can know how to drive a car, but without knowing where you're going you roam pointlessly. This is the same way, you can learn techniques, but without moving in a certain direction you just wind up roaming. The problem is that even the very word "enlightenment" has certain ideas tied to it whether you dig deeply or not. I'm guessing that even if you haven't learned a lot about what enlightenment is/isn't you still have some ideas about it. The point of learning is simply to use the teachings as signposts without feeling the need to cling onto any of them in particular. Can you accomplish this on your own? Sure, especially because this work is the process of removing ideas rather than adding them, but some ideas can be helpful in the beginning.

I deal with this all the time too. A large part of it is just that there are so many different interpretations of what enlightenment is out there that it is hard to not get distracted. And just being a logically driven person it is hard for me to let go of my desire to rationalize everything. If you're looking for good info though I'd say read Peter Ralston's stuff. I've read the Book of Not Knowing and that definitely helped clarify a lot of things. I'm going to read Pursuing Consciousness soon too (I have some bigger priorities in my life right now to attend to). Aside from those books though I've stopped looking for other sources of info. I'm not trying to hold Ralston up as an absolute authority, no one should be held up in that way, but he is the most straightforward and thorough teacher that I've come across and his information can point me in the right direction. The main point of reading information though is to put it into practice, as long as you're doing that then you're doing what you can.

Enlightenment is aggrandized. All that it is is the realization that awareness is the primordial layer in which thoughts, perceptions, feelings, emotions, experiences, senses of self, etc. can arise. Fundamentally, nothing changes, it's just that you move from identifying with the thoughts, etc. to realizing that the thoughts, etc. occur within the space of awareness. All that is lost is the belief that you are your body, your perceptions, thoughts, and so on. This idea of "you do not exist" is misconstrued. You do exist as the awareness in which all occurs. But at the same time, saying "I am awareness" is also flawed as it is just another label. You can ask "what is awareness" and realize that you do not know. Any thought you ever have about what awareness is is not awareness itself. Awareness looks out at everything but itself. All that is true is that awareness is always present but it is beyond the mind's ability to cognize. That's why things get frustrating with this work, but if you seek to ever be able to conceptualize awareness it will never happen. That is the trap of enlightenment. (Went off on a tangent there, but that may reduce a lot of the seeking that goes on... that being said, investigate it for yourself). Is there a possibility? Perhaps. In my own experience I have mainly just become less concerned with pettiness, vanity, competition, and so on because I don't see anything as a personal attack anymore. But at the same time, this doesn't mean that I have stopped feeling emotions. For example, I still become angry if I see someone hurting an animal. I feel emotions more fully but when they pass they pass. I don't resist what authentically arises, I am just aware as it flows through and by. Not fixating or dwelling on any one experience or thing. So to a large extent interactions become deeper. You're not caught up in having to defend your sense of you, your worldview, etc. and instead you can just be aware of the current interaction. How does one experience nothing? If you are experiencing nothing then aren't you really experiencing something? I find deeper enjoyment in everything but for different reasons that before. For example, I used to be a highly competitive person, played many sports growing up and was quite good at some of them. But the primary motive then was winning. I look back now and realize that the enjoyment did not come from a scoreboard, it came from the deep feeling of flow. The times where I did not think about outcomes but instead just was fully immersed in the moment was when I played the best. I did not play, it plays. I recently took up mountain biking again after a few years away from it, it just kinda interested me again out of nowhere and I am enjoying it more now than I ever did. Similarly to those other sports it is no longer about being competitive but about being fully present. And despite the hiatus, I am surprisingly riding better now with far less time spent on it. The point of motivation largely changes. It is not about self improvement or doing something purely for the sake of something else. The activities of this moment no longer serve as a means to an end in some conceptual future moment but are the end in themselves. But that absolutely does not mean that someone cannot have the capacity to create, learn, etc. Yes, nothing you do will fundamentally change what you are. For example, self improvement might mean "I will get job X" but job X is just what you do, it is not what you are. It is another label. So can that make someone lazy and reclusive, maybe, but not necessarily.

If enlightenment is the realization of the truth of no self, experiencing that the egoic self is a secondary process that is created out of awareness, then why do we complicate it beyond that? It seems like the deeper I dive into this work the more it becomes riddled with wordplay. Intellectually, the minor semantic differences have proven to be useful in many cases, but its experiential value is arguable. These descriptions can never convey the truth of what is, so doesn't talking about the minor details wind up over-complicating things by setting up a belief of what enlightenment should/must be? Even fundamental enlightenment beliefs like "oh when you're enlightened you feel an overwhelming sense of love for all things" may only pollute the purity of awareness as it Is which is unbound by any sort of compartmentalization or conceptualization. It all seems to get really hand-wavy. In my experience, love has seemed to be acceptance of what is rather than love in the traditional sense of the word. This love, if it can be called that, is consistent and calm, rather than excitable and somewhat needy. That's just one example of how an experience doesn't necessarily fit the expectation of how something, within the context of enlightenment, should be (at least based on my original interpretation of what I thought the statement meant). Another thing that I have questioned to a greater extent is my overall demeanor. I feel authentic in my interactions with people but I am also colder than I used to be. I can't help but wonder if the cause of that is awakening to what is true in my own experience or whether it is a result of new conditioning from all of this work that I've been deeply exploring since Leo's first enlightenment video came out. When I say cold, I mean it in the sense of not really being fazed by anything anymore, a sense of detachment, and just accepting what is. For example, I accept death, tragedy, etc. much more quickly than people around me because I realize that those things are beyond my control, somewhat subjective, illusory, etc. As a result, I am not as nurturing as a probably could be, so I am at odds between putting on a hat and playing the role of nurturing person or just accepting what is (including the fact that people are in pain because they cannot also accept things as they are). That is not to say that accepting what is means being complacent in every circumstance, easing the suffering of others can be important in my opinion (but it becomes unnecessary once you don't need things to be any particular way as there is no suffering created in the first place). And of course, working towards any sort of goal is inherently a result of wanting things to be different from how they are currently. But where does one find the balance between acceptance and imposition of self-will? Spiritual teachers such as Adyashanti, Eckart Tolle, etc. seem to have found a good balance and I've certainly "gained" a lot from learning and experiencing many of their teachings but I can't help but wonder if they do what they do because, on a certain level, they cannot accept things as they are. So then, why do people who we believe have achieved the highest levels of awakening find any need to teach at all? Yes, I'm being contradictory, because I did say that "easing the suffer of others is important" and but there is an egoic component to that. With non-duality it stands to reason that by reducing the suffering of others we are benefitting awareness as a whole, but the very notion that suffering is "bad" and must be avoided is a human construction. In that sense, I almost feel as though Jed McKenna's reclusive behavior may have been the most realistic representation of an enlightenment teacher who accepts things as they are. What then is the point of this journey? Sure, I've pretty much completely eliminated my personal suffering but in doing so I have become less relatable to other people. I understand what they are going through intellectually and I have about 22 years worth of programmed thinking experience to be able to relate to them, but I don't feel the desire to to a large extent. And I could walk in circles about how that doesn't matter either, etc. etc. but I think I've probably made the crux of my viewpoint apparent. Can anyone who has had a similar experience shed some light on this? Wow, I think I went on a lot of tangents, but hopefully it's coherent enough. If you have any insights about any of my questions/comments, I'd like to hear them. Thank you.

That's okay, I am not going to chase after some experience I'm "supposed" to have. I can't force myself to experience nothing and if I try to then I'm always going to be experiencing something. So if it happens, it happens, if not, that's okay too. As far as "wrong people," when it really comes down to it, listening to anyone except your own direct experience is the wrong person to listen to. Anyone held as authority will perpetuate duality and conceptual thinking. Further reason for why I shouldn't chase after some shift. I know nothing about chakras. I also don't feel any desire to know anything about them because, again, they are just more concepts. No offense taken, I feel no need for approval. If that is where you see me then that is fine. Someone who is actually at this level wouldn't feel the need for others to know... because they wouldn't see a separation between "self" and "other" in the first place. I feel pretty free right now Okay, so that was a glimpse into my mind, most of the major thoughts that popped up in response to your post. I agree with you, I do over rationalize things, but I figured if I were to get any feedback that would be helpful I would have to be completely transparent with what comes up rather than trying to sugarcoat it. And yes, I realize that in asking for guidance I am playing the role of student, but I think in this circumstance it is better for me to do that rather than adamantly believing that I understand what is going on because I quite honestly don't. Thank you for your response.

Just to clarify, when I say "truly understood" I do not mean an intellectual understanding.

These are ideas about what you think enlightenment is. Enlightenment is about truth at its most fundamental basis. Your username is "What am I?" so you are familiar with that question. Ask yourself that and try to get to the bottom of it. These expectations of what you think will happen are just other concepts. Are you ever not connected with life? Buddhism, Hinduism, gurus, spiritual teachers, etc. can only point in a direction. They can say words and you may even think you fully understand them when they are saying them (see below), but adding more knowledge is not necessary. Getting tied to a teaching and expecting that that teaching is the authority is not going to get you closer. Much of the value of the teachings is not in the teaching itself, but in exhausting the need to search. The underlying truth becomes more apparent over time until you realize that none of those descriptions were ever necessary. This is what I mean when I say that you can hear something and think you understand it. The idea that you are already enlightened is not flawed, but if you truly understood why that is then there would be no reason to ask this question. Explore this for yourself.

@charlie2dogs I think what ends up happening for many is that they search for so long that they desperately want it to be something magnificent for all the searching to be worth it. The more time invested, the more grand the expectation. For a long time, I wanted that, chasing after an image of what I thought enlightenment is. But to actually answer the line of questioning: I don't think it is anything "special" in the way I was expecting. I do however think the very fact that awareness exists and is the only reason why anything exists is the most spectacular realization I've ever had. I've contemplated for 15+ hours since I posted that other comment and I realize now that there is nothing to look for. I don't have the desire to seek any more knowledge about enlightenment (As Jed McKenna put it "The point is to wake up, not earn a PhD in waking up). Awareness is it. I understand now that I was expecting some sort of a shift. As though there would be a pre-enlightenment self and a post-enlightenment "self." But this is it. Awareness is already everything. No intellectualization/understanding/conceptualization will ever change the empty awareness in which that cognizing takes place. And although the thoughts that appear within the awareness are significantly different than before I started delving into this topic, the awareness that is aware of these thoughts remains unchanged. It's the whole "gateless-gate" thing. I always assumed that some experience (a "gate") would allow me to pass from pre-enlightened, egoic thinking to enlightenment. But there is no gate. There is no experience that must occur. There is no fundamental shift in the awareness itself. The awareness is the same awareness regardless of how my cognitive experience labels that awareness. There is nothing to seek that isn't already right here. There is nothing to gain as it was never lost. Whether I am "enlightened" or not doesn't matter. It never did matter. It was just another label.

@Ayla This was a much simpler realization than I thought... I sat with it and realized that if I am able to ask/answer that question then awareness is already aware of itself. Crazy how the mind will run circles when the truth is right there in plain sight.

I define happiness in two ways: 1. The usual "excitement" type of happiness that people feel that we normally refer to as happiness in culture. This may be ecstatic, or a feeling of elation, or relief, or whatever else typically comes into mind when we talk about happiness. This elation is what I believe many people are searching for in enlightenment (or at least it is what I was originally seeking). This emotive happiness is largely dependent on external circumstances and the ego's relation to those circumstances. 2. The calm, constant happiness. This is not characterized by high peaks/excitement. It is what is found in just being. An example of when someone might feel this sort of happiness is when they're flowing in whatever it is that they're doing or when talking a walk in nature or, as stated before, when just being. This form of happiness could be described as being at peace, not needing anything to be any particular way. It is independent of circumstance.

Who said that this was all about being happy? Enlightenment is about truth, whatever that may be. Happiness is something that people believe they must strive to have, but that is not necessarily so. It is another concept. What you may find is peace in accepting things as they are. Death is illusory. The awareness that is you is eternal.

I agree to a certain extent. I think if that motivation is purely a means to an end (i.e. I want to achieve X in the future) then it is exactly as you described. But motivation to do something as the end in itself (which I think you described as "Life expressing itself in that way somehow.") is still a pull towards something/motivation, it is just independent of planning. I think it's possible to be highly motivated while still being fully grounded in the present moment. Never thought of it that way!

Lol, don't get me wrong, I'm not implying that I think they're frauds or anything like that, just that they probably share their experiences to rope in followers regardless of the motivation to do so (pull to share, profit, spiritual ego, etc.). Many people seem to have this yearning for a teacher outside of their own direct experience (myself included, otherwise I wouldn't be on this forum right now asking for guidance) so it is logical to think that they would want their teacher to have some "credibility." Oh haha, that's it? So is there anything beyond that acceptance? I am still stuck in seeking mode. I've heard things along the lines of "enlightenment is awareness being aware of itself, beyond perception, sensation, and thought" so is that ever actually possible in direct experience or is it time for me to stop seeking and just settle into being awareness and let that happen if it happens? (I think I may have answered my own question)

So should I keep doing what I'm doing now (a combination of observing and intellectualizing the way I did in my first post) in order to exhaust my mind completely? Or is the intellectualization hindering this? Isn't everyone that way to a certain extent? The thoughts just come and go, it is just the degree of resistance that people have to those thoughts that I'd say is different. So someone with very little resistance can easily flow while people who are constantly at odds with their thoughts are more hindered. This was an important reminder, thanks. Is the only reason that spiritual teachers share their enlightenment experience/s to gain credibility? So unless I never have a thought again the ego will never be killed? If that is the case, then why is there a need to exhaust it at all? Why not just accept that it is there but the compulsive drive to identify with it is unnecessary?

@Ayla Thank you! Great, let it die haha! Do you mean that my mind is just looking for more concepts to keep itself from dying? Is this what is meant by "Kill the Buddha"? These teachers have helped guide things up until this point, but now I have to let go of the teachings because the are no longer helping, but rather these concepts are what are keeping the ego from dying? Yeah, that's largely what I've noticed. Petty drama, vanity, competition, etc. no longer interests me. It's surprising to me because I used to be extremely competitive and superficial. That clears things up for me, thanks!

haha that's the question I've been asking too. My last response was poorly worded, I'm not trying to complicate things, I'm trying to understand is if enlightenment goes deeper than why my first sentence in my first post said. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I'm actually agreeing with it, which is the point that I was trying to make in the first paragraph of my original post. But I'm still conflicted because I've fallen into the trap of what I think enlightenment is based on everything I've heard about it, how hard it is supposed to be to experience, blah blah blah which is what I'm trying to get over.

Nothing, that's a relatively simple experience to have and the beginning of the awakening process. I'm more interested in going deeper than that, which is where the more complicated self-inquiry takes place. Perhaps I am just overanalyzing things though, which is why my post was introduced with that premise. Thank you for your response.

Oh and just to be clear, although my post probably comes across as nihilistic that is not the viewpoint from which it was written. I've gone through periods of deep nihilism earlier on in my journey. This is more about acceptance rather than hopelessness.

People like patterns and telling ourselves that everything happens for a reason. We try to escape from not-knowing by quickly coming up with a story to "know" what is going on. So synchronicity may be a real phenomenon or it may just be us looking back and connecting dots (I lean more towards the latter belief because it keeps me from forming stories in my head, but even that is still only a belief).

This video was somewhat interesting (watched about 1 hour until I decided it was a bit too nonsensical to keep watching... though I did have my doubts even earlier). The problem I have with it is that he is so entrenched in dogmatic thinking towards what enlightenment is that he's trying to give too much meaning to each experience he has (the kestrel, the desert, becoming a spiritual teacher, etc.). He claims to be enlightened, and maybe he is, but things like construing what's happening in his life with stories about what he believes his past life is just his mind playing with itself. Enlightenment is about truth and, quite frankly, I don't think he's realized that. And just the fact that he has a bunch of gates (steps) that he thinks are the path to being fully awake seems a bit naive... There is no 1 to 2 to 3; there is no path.

You're contradicting yourself a bit in these two statements. Keep practicing meditation, it sounds like it's going just fine. Don't get caught up in a picture of what you think progress looks like.

What is the difference between being "nothingness" and this moment? I realize that the egoic self is illusory, culturally conditioned, etc. but my realization was that my real self is this moment. Is "nothingness" just another way to describe this? For example, in Leo's "Enlightenment Guided Inquiry" he speaks about how the true self must remain constant and that is why "I" am not the senses or my thoughts. I understand that, but something that is constant in experience is the fact that every moment is this moment. However, what exists within the framework of this moment does change constantly (but even though things/thoughts/etc. change in this moment, the fact remains true that it is still this moment). But, is the true self something else? Also, I understand that enlightenment must be experienced, not intellectualized, but isn't the process of self inquiry intellectualizing it? Yes, it has been necessary for me to have the realizations that I have had so far, but is full enlightenment only possible at the suspension of all thought? After all, if the noumena is things as they are then any thought or intellectualization is an abstraction of what Is, right? Which would explain why enlightenment cannot be talked about because any description or interpretation of something is a conceptualization of reality. Am I the silence in which all other things can arise? I know this post may ask too many questions at once, but any guidance would be greatly appreciated, thank you!

@Ayla Thanks! That's basically what I figured it was too, until I read a bit more of Peter Ralston's stuff and saw the differentiation between things related to self (which is how most people perceive things), things for-itself (which is what you described), and things as-itself. So the direct experience of a thing can be had by not attaching any meaning to it, but I'm still trying to experience that layer of things "as-itself."

I'm wrapping my head around it but that description (kinda) makes sense haha! I also love that Buddhist saying, but it's definitely easier said than experienced lol @Saarah Maybe, I am beginning to question myself on whether they are the same thing. Logically, that statement makes sense, and maybe that is it. But after ruminating on this topic for a couple of days I don't think it's the whole picture, at least not at my current level of understanding. Anything that I am perceiving (or not perceiving) now is still biased. The things that I have a positive or negative response towards go noticed in the Now while all other things do not. As Peter Ralston would put it, my perceptions plus my mind experience effects as a result of an ongoing need for self-survival. I've fought the notion that enlightenment cannot be experienced logically for a long time, but the only way for me to dig deeper is to let go. I've been clinging to this answer, but it's not a complete experience of Being. No logical statement is. Must keep looking!