Enlightenment is turning the volume all the way down on experience

[winterknight]

 

[Synchronicity]

Very insightful

I have another perspective to extend on that. Enlightenment is remaining Aware no matter how high or low the volume of experience is! 

Then again, you were already kind of hinting at that with your own words

[winterknight]

27 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Very insightful

I have another perspective to extend on that. Enlightenment is remaining Aware no matter how high or low the volume of experience is! 

Then again, you were already kind of hinting at that with your own words

In a way it’s almost remaining UNaware, that’s the funny thing. UNaware of objects of experience = aware of Self

[Synchronicity]

Just now, winterknight said:

In a way it’s almost remaining UNaware, that’s the funny thing. UNaware of objects of experience = aware of Self

That’s one method yes. Another method to remember is being fully aware of objects of experience because they’re all pieces of the Self

[Preetom]

2 hours ago, winterknight said:

In a way it’s almost remaining UNaware, that’s the funny thing. UNaware of objects of experience = aware of Self

Excellent! This is something Ramana Maharshi and Rupert Spira says occasionally. The Self is already complete. There is no case where the Self is not itself. That's why in order to 'know' the Self, all one has to do is to cease knowing things other than the Self. It's the relaxation of objective attention and instead promoting subjective being.

2 hours ago, Synchronicity said:

That’s one method yes. Another method to remember is being fully aware of objects of experience because they’re all pieces of the Self

 Yes, that's certainly another kind of external samadhi. But most good spiritual teachers including Rupert Spira don't recommend that right off the bat. One needs to establish the singularity and supremacy of the Self all alone at first. Once that breakthrough is there, the 2nd part of consuming everything else into the Self becomes almost automatic..just to find out that there never was anything but the Self.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Preetom

[Synchronicity]

@Preetom Yes very true. It’s more of a broader, integrative step than a foundational one

[Preetom]

''First the disciple has to be prepared and purified with the teachings and practice of stillness and self-control. Then he is to be initiated in the creed that ''All is Brahman and you are that pure Spirit''. But who teaches the faith of ''all is Brahman'' to the half taught and ignorant, truly entangles him in the strong snare of hell''

- Yoga Vashishta (chap 39, verse 23)

@winterknight would you agree with this? 

[Inliytened1]

@Preetom i like that quote.  One must crawl before they can walk.

[winterknight]

20 minutes ago, Preetom said:

''First the disciple has to be prepared and purified with the teachings and practice of stillness and self-control. Then he is to be initiated in the creed that ''All is Brahman and you are that pure Spirit''. But who teaches the faith of ''all is Brahman'' to the half taught and ignorant, truly entangles him in the strong snare of hell''

- Yoga Vashishta (chap 39, verse 23)

@winterknight would you agree with this? 

Heh. You’ve very cleverly cited one of my favorite scriptures . It’s going to be hard for me to disagree. Though what constitutes the ignorant and the half-taught? Therein lies the problem. The idea of intensive qualifications before one can learn the secrets of Brahman from a forest master is untenable today.

But moreover, I actually prefer not to say that all is Brahman. That’s a provisional truth at most, and it’s not my preferred way of putting things. And I’m against the fashionable idea of integration. 

The old Vedantic saw goes: “Brahma satyam jagat mithya jivo brahmaiva naparam.” Self is Truth; world is untruth; the soul is nothing other than that Brahman.

The very idea of the world existing at all is itself a myth. So “all” cannot be Brahman, finally—all is itself a category of language, of the mind, which is false. Only that is which is when the mind doesn’t think. And in fact the mind never thinks...

Edited July 18, 2019 by winterknight

[Natasha]

2 minutes ago, winterknight said:

And I’m against the fashionable idea of integration. 

Would you elaborate? In my case after Self-realization I saw integration as almost necessary. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to function in the Relative. 

[Inliytened1]

Advaita Vedanta is a very ancient teaching..so we have to take it in context.  I believe Preetom has a past post on it which it is explored in detail here on this forum.

[winterknight]

8 minutes ago, Natasha said:

Would you elaborate? In my case after Self-realization I saw integration as almost necessary. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to function in the Relative. 

Realization is the complete annihilation of the idea of there being a doer or an enjoyer, someone who has to deal with and experience the events of life.

The mind knowing that Truth clearly, what can there be to integrate and who to integrate it? Who is there who needs — or even CAN — function in the relative, and who even says there is such a thing as the relative?

The only relevant integration is the “realized” mind, when confronted with the problems of the relative, abandoning those wrong notions, automatically, effortlessly, and again and again returning to Silence.

[robdl]

2 hours ago, winterknight said:

In a way it’s almost remaining UNaware, that’s the funny thing. UNaware of objects of experience = aware of Self

It's interesting the contrast between self-inquiry/retracting awareness from objects of attention and say, the "total attention" or observation that Krishnamurti spoke of, which emphasized that any attention that excludes/focuses/directs is the perpetuation of thought/effort.  Can the two be reconciled?

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, robdl said:

It's interesting the contrast between self-inquiry/retracting awareness from objects of attention and say, the "total attention" or observation that Krishnamurti spoke of, which emphasized that any attention that excludes/focuses/directs is the perpetuation of thought/effort.  Can the two be reconciled?

Sure. Withdrawal of attention is not a focusing, it’s the precise absence of focusing. Like when you’re zoned out or absent-minded.

[robdl]

1 minute ago, winterknight said:

Sure. Withdrawal of attention is not a focusing, it’s the precise absence of focusing. Like when you’re zoned out or absent-minded.

There is the de-focusing on objects of attention indeed, but could you say there's another form of focus  --- on the pure subject-feeling?

[Preetom]

28 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Heh. You’ve very cleverly cited one of my favorite scriptures . It’s going to be hard for me to disagree. Though what constitutes the ignorant and the half-taught? Therein lies the problem. The idea of intensive qualifications before one can learn the secrets of Brahman from a forest master is untenable today.

But moreover, I actually prefer not to say that all is Brahman. That’s a provisional truth at most, and it’s not my preferred way of putting things. And I’m against the fashionable idea of integration. 

The old Vedantic saw goes: “Brahma satyam jagat mithya jivo brahmaiva naparam.” Self is Truth; world is untruth; the soul is nothing other than that Brahman.

The very idea of the world existing at all is itself a myth. So “all” cannot be Brahman, finally—all is itself a category of language, of the mind, which is false. Only that is which is when the mind doesn’t think. And in fact the mind never thinks...

Thanks for elaborating on this!

The way I understood that verse is one first and foremost has to realize the Self by turning more and more inward.

But instead of doing that thoroughly many people fall in the mire of thought patterns like "contemplate about everything", "everything is god/brahman", "try to see god in everything", "i have to intregate everything" etc all the while the puzzle of self still remains intact.

And as a result of that, the irreversible breakthrough never happens and one fails to live the living "experience" of it. Instead they cant help but settling for nondual beliefs and ideologies and a new set of "enlightened morality"

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Preetom

[Inliytened1]

@winterknight i have discovered with the realization of Oneness that what you are describing is only half the circle.  To completely come full circle is to not only to see non-duality as enlightenment but also to see duality as enlightenment.  To unify both into One.  To have this awareness all the time and see the Oneness that is you in both the form and the formless.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Inliytened1

[Synchronicity]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

i have discovered with the realization of Oneness that what you are describing is only half the circle.  To completely come full circle is to not only to see non-duality as enlightenment but also to see duality as enlightenment.  To unify both into One.  To have this awareness all the time and see the Oneness that is you in both the form and the formless.

I agree. Nonduality vs. Duality is the final Duality to be collapsed 

[Natasha]

26 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Realization is the complete annihilation of the idea of there being a doer or an enjoyer, someone who has to deal with and experience the events of life.

The mind knowing that Truth clearly, what can there be to integrate and who to integrate it? Who is there who needs — or even CAN — function in the relative, and who even says there is such a thing as the relative?

The only relevant integration is the “realized” mind, when confronted with the problems of the relative, abandoning those wrong notions, automatically, effortlessly, and again and again returning to Silence.

Yes, there was complete and permanent disillusionment of the doer. The one that's typing this is but an imaginary form and sensations rising and disappearing in the void. Yet when I cross the street, I still navigate to not be hit by traffic. The language breakdown is quite a hindrance when discussing these things. But what I mean by integration can be described in Preetom's and Inlytened1's quotes below... as full circle

1 hour ago, Preetom said:

Excellent! This is something Ramana Maharshi and Rupert Spira says occasionally. The Self is already complete. There is no case where the Self is not itself. That's why in order to 'know' the Self, all one has to do is to cease knowing things other than the Self. It's the relaxation of objective attention and instead promoting subjective being.

 Yes, that's certainly another kind of external samadhi. But most good spiritual teachers including Rupert Spira don't recommend that right off the bat. One needs to establish the singularity and supremacy of the Self all alone at first. Once that breakthrough is there, the 2nd part of consuming everything else into the Self becomes almost automatic..just to find out that there never was anything but the Self.

 

[Natasha]

6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@winterknight i have discovered with the realization of Oneness that what you are describing is only half the circle.  To completely come full circle is to not only to see non-duality as enlightenment but also to see duality as enlightenment.  To unify both into One.  To have this awareness all the time and see the Oneness that is you in both the form and the formless.

Yes