Enlightenment Qualifications Continued

[Bizarre]

@NTOgen

Continuing our discussion here. 

This is why once you understand the Fundamental problem teaching, you can also spot all the spiritual egos popping up everywhere.  

It's no more evident than in the recent discussion about Trump.  Look at all the people up in arms and stuck to their opinions about this guy, and their experience in general. It's just object seeking on another level, a person qualified for enlightenment doesn't give two hoots about what's going on in the world because the world is seen as "empty" to a person ready for freedom. 

Existence is entertainment for a liberated person.  It's "of interest" but ultimately there is no need to change it, because what is their to be gained by trying to change reality? Realtive reality doesn't even matter because it's irrelevant. 

The place could go up in smoke for all a liberated being cares, because it's just an illusion. Really. Maya created this for a laugh, and non duality means it's all the same, it's all consciousness.  

This doesn't mean enlightenment strips the person of their opinions, but even opinions are just seen as part of Maya, a contributory factor to the stage play being acted out here. It's all Gods creation, and the enlightened person has nothing to do with it.

The self is beyond God. 

This is why you want to get rid of satva asap. It's just a means to an end. Satva has a downside (like everything in duality) and that is a holier than thou attitude. 

So satva is conducive to enlightenment, but it can also be a hindrance too. 

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by GTITurbolover

[Bizarre]

3 minutes ago, NTOgen said:

One question, though...

How the hell do you insert someone's nametag in a new thread???

This is a great question. Press the @ sign and start typing the name. 

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, GTITurbolover said:

a person qualified for enlightenment doesn't give two hoots about what's going on in the world because the world is seen as "empty" to a person ready for freedom.

This is not true.

Enlightenment isn't nihilism.

If anything, an enlightened person cares MORE about what's going on in the world because they have compassion and love, and understand the nature of ignorance and suffering.

It's possible to deeply care, but in a detached -- non-egoic -- way.

If you can't look at a small homeless crippled child and cry, your enlightenment isn't very deep. And if you don't care about anything or anyone, then your enlightenment has gone really awry.

[Bizarre]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

This is not true.

Enlightenment isn't nihilism.

If anything, an enlightened person cares MORE about what's going on in the world because they have compassion and love, and understand the nature of ignorance and suffering.

It's possible to deeply care, but in a detached -- non-egoic -- way.

If you can't look at a small homeless crippled child and cry, your enlightenment isn't very deep. And if you don't care about anything or anyone, then your enlightenment has gone really awry.

Possibly.  I guess my point was more to drive home the fundamental problem and expose the spiritual ego.  Ramana was a saint, but he didn't "care" as in nothing made any difference to him.  He didn't go out do-gooding to try to change things.  He didn't even teach, really.  And he never gave anything to anyone.  He peeled potatoes and ran his ashram and lived his life.  But yeah, he was a saintly person, but he was not interested in changing anything.

Swami Chinmayananda on the other hand (my teachers teacher) (considered the "Pope" of India) cared, but he only cared in so much that his main vasana compelled him to translate the teachings into English and make them accessible to the world.  But he didn't set up a charity and try to change the world.  He just did his thing and lived like a free person.  

Ghandi was not a free person.  He was a rebel.  Mother Theresa was a deeply unhappy person, not free at all, forced to care because that was her job assigned to her by the Roman Catholic church.

Its the gunas and vasanas doing the doings, not the person.  But a lot of people have the false impression that enlightenment itself is about do-gooding.  And I think it's helpful to clear that up.

Which makes me a bit of a do-gooder? Oh fuck... 

The main point is, you can't change any of it.  Don't confuse insensitivity with what I'm saying.  All things in samsara are the gunas and the vasanas, enlightenment just means you are free, and the most important thing is svadharma.  The main point is and enlightened person knows that everyone here is getting the karma that is due to them, and that Isvara is taking care of the total.  

We don't try to help people unless they are ready and ask for help.  We don't get involved.  It's not the enlightened persons business to meddle with samsara.  The tradition doesnt preach to anyone, and the teaching is delivered in the spirit of two friends having a conversation.  Nothing more.  Real teachers don't accept emotionally needy people into their satsangs either.  

This is why you need a complete teaching about the structure of samsara, otherwise you will get confused about what samsara is, and still project the self onto the objects and the objects onto the self (which is what you are doing, sadly) its called "mutual superimposition" and its one of the main stumbling blocks.  However, every tom dick and harry thinks they know what enlightenment is...it's just a sign of the times

Edited November 10, 2016 by GTITurbolover

[Bizarre]

1 hour ago, NTOgen said:

By the way, from the other thread:

 

That strikes me as a tough nut to crack (especially on this forum).

Actually it really only began to sink in for myself recently, even though I've already understood it for a long time. Like it said in that email you posted in the other thread: "one will still think one has to “get” it. Or one will still wait to have that final experience that will prove he or she is awareness!"

Truth be told I'm still waiting for that too, I can't help it. Something definitely isn't finished and I won't be satisfied until it is.

Any light you could shine on that?

 

I've been told that our enlightenment will come when it's the right thing for the total.  Real enlightened people serve a purpose here just as others do, and I guess a person with liberation has a lot going for them influence wise?  It's hard to figure out, the main thing is to keep working on the qualifications, clean up the misinformed ideas about what liberation is, and keep plugging away at it?  It will come, but the main thing to realize is that the self cannot be realized as an object.  Its not possible, and as you say, its a logical absurdity!  As long as that is clear then its a major obstacle out of the way then

[Bizarre]

@NTOgen You will get it if you are open to understanding.  If you want to figure it out by yourself, be prepared for a long wait.  My teacher is an enlightened mahatma for over 45 years, hes doesnt give a shit, he loves fishing and teaching and Isvara looks after all his needs.  His vasnanas serve the total in the way Isvara intends, not the way his ego intends.  Listen to the right information and enlightenment will be possible for you

[Bizarre]

7 minutes ago, NTOgen said:

On that note... I found out today that your teacher's batgap videos are no longer available ...any idea why that is?

You're old enough and ugly enough to email him and ask him yourself.

However I will say this, he is a lineage holder, and his teachings are there for all to check with the original source texts. So if you have a quarrel with what he says, you better contact the sampradaya because hes just teaching what they teach.

Start with the Chinmaya Mission if you have an issue, or if you are interested go join his facebook group and watch him tear the tamasic logical absurdities he gets challenged with to pieces.  Its educational to say the least 

Edited November 10, 2016 by GTITurbolover

[Bizarre]

13 minutes ago, NTOgen said:

No quarrel at all. Our interactions here genuinely made me want to watch those videos again. I still have the second one which I downloaded last year, together with a folder full of reading material from his own website. But when I tried to find the first one on batgap I discovered that all mention of his name seems to be removed from there, which I found odd.

So don't worry, I'm not out to attack anyone. Judging from your reaction I imagine there must have been some kind of disagreement? No need to elaborate on it here, I was just curious so I thought I'd ask about it. For the record I'm not too interested in batgap or in whatever politics is probably going on behind the scenes. It's fine by me.

It's not that.  It's just there is so much ignorance in the spiritual world, that when he came along with things that some people were not willing to look at he pissed some people off.  He speaks openly about it, laughs about it because he's free to do what he wants.  He's not deluded by experiential enlightenment and has not been unfortunate enough to pick up silly ideas from a mish mash of non dual teachings that dont do anything to resolve the doubts of duality.  You need a certain amount of brain power to think about and destroy your delusions, parroting non dual teachings from a wide range of sources doesnt quite cut it. Although, because tamo guna is strong in people who just want to follow formulas and compile beliefs and not think, this is what you get.  Ignorance is always operating, and if you just read books youre going to misinterpret the meaning of things. People dont like having their beliefs destroyed with logic - even spiritual people.  He's no different to his tradition, there all the same - the teachers go through years of training on the Bhrama Sutras so they dont get strawmaned by people claiming they know better.  Its watertight.

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by GTITurbolover

[Bizarre]

2 hours ago, NTOgen said:

That strikes me as a tough nut to crack (especially on this forum).

I'm not here to crack a tough nut.  I'm here because I enjoy speaking about enlightenment, and I was pleased you picked up on what the sensible approach is.

I am in a position to do pretty much what I want these days, and cos Im not interested in saving the world I like to speak on forums.  It helps me clarify the teachings for myself too.  Which we need to do, cos ignorance is deeply intrenched, and this isnt about compiling nice comforting beliefs, its about inquiry.

[Bizarre]

3 minutes ago, NTOgen said:

I get it. I myself am a grateful fan of Jed McKenna, whose no-nonsense style has undoubtedly pissed off more than a few in the crowd as well. That's exactly what I like about him

 

If you're not pissing a few people off in life, then youre basically a lying bastard   I don't read Jed Mckenna because I don't know who he is.  And never trust human beings, because they always always distort the truth.  Just go straight for the tried and tested method.  Its all been worked out

[Bizarre]

11 minutes ago, NTOgen said:

Just for fun:

http://www.wisefoolpress.com/blues-for-buddha/

http://www.wisefoolpress.com/the-whole-truth/

http://www.wisefoolpress.com/impersonating-jed-mckenna/

 

That's great.  I'll have a proper look at that later before bed.  Just had a lil peek at his thoughts about Buddhism.  Shankara discredited that path 1200 years ago.  

Do you know whos the person behind the writing by any chance?

[Bizarre]

10 minutes ago, NTOgen said:

Nobody does and he keeps it that way intentionally.

Sounds dodgy.  But if hes doing it to avoid the backlash of the bleeding hearts he's probably wise.

I don't trust it though, he's a human being and if anyone has been on this planet long enough, they should know that a human beings teachings are not to be trusted (and if you don't you deserve all you get), hes not associated with a tradition that protects him and the student from corruption. But im sure it will make good bedtime reading?  For me anyway  I dont want to sound like a dick, but this whole holism thing is a joke.  Get enlightened first then we can enjoy all the B.S maya presents to us, but if we rely on the bs to help us think correctly we will just get bogged down in the mire of quoting Rumi poems and whacking off to spiritual porn.

Sorry for leaving you with that image

Edited November 10, 2016 by GTITurbolover

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Abdul said:

@Leo Gura What about those enlightened assholes you talked about?

Like I said, their enlightenment isn't very deep, and there's A LOT more to this than merely enlightenment.

[Bizarre]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Like I said, their enlightenment isn't very deep, and there's A LOT more to this than merely enlightenment.

This doesnt even make logical sense.

Who are you parroting Leo?

Enlightenment means the end of seeking.  The end of knowledge, the end of your spiritual journey here.  The end of doership (how can actionless awareness do anything about something that is not objective, real?)

This is dull, tamasic and formula based thinking, and you contradict yourself.  You conflating self improvement with enlightenment.

[Leo Gura]

@GTITurbolover "If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."

That's why it doesn't make logical sense to you.

But actually, what's illogical is boiling down all of life and reality to a simple-minded, one-dimensional thing.

Enlightenment and spirituality is VASTLY more complex and nuanced than you ever imagined. As it ought to be, given that we're talking about the nature of an infinite reality and how to navigate it masterfully.

If this topic was so cut-and-dry and one-dimensional, there wouldn't exist the enormous diversity and complexity found in all mystical and spiritual traditions around the world.

You haven't studied enough diverse perspectives yet on spirituality. Which is why I warn people to be openminded and to never become loyal to any one teaching or teacher. You will develop a lopsided understanding of reality if you do that. Even if you manage to attain enlightenment.

[Nadie]

@Leo Gura I understand (though, I imagine, only to a very small extent) when you talk about that vastness and about absolute infinity - but I only understand with my instinct, not my intellect. 

After years of honest, open-minded religious/spiritual inquiry that came out of an atheist background, I had an epiphany that God is not something we can understand with our minds, that spiritual things are understood by the spirit, kind of in a multi-dimensional sense. (Note that I say I had an "epiphany", not a "thought".)

That gave a whole new meaning to the word/concept of "faith". It became something that suddenly seemed so obvious to accept.

I imagine that a similar kind of epiphany would give many people a whole new meaning to and understanding of the word/concept of enlightenment, too. 

Like maybe it's something that can't be understood, it can only be had.

[Prabhaker]

39 minutes ago, GTITurbolover said:

Enlightenment means the end of seeking.  The end of knowledge, the end of your spiritual journey here.

Enlightenment could mean anything on this form awakening, savikalpa samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi, full enlightenment. We are not using same language.

[Bizarre]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@GTITurbolover "If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."

That's why it doesn't make logical sense to you.

But actually, what's illogical is boiling down all of life and reality to a simple-minded, one-dimensional thing.

Enlightenment and spirituality is VASTLY more complex and nuanced than you ever imagined. As it ought to be, given that we're talking about the nature of an infinite reality and how to navigate it masterfully.

If this topic was so cut-and-dry and one-dimensional, there wouldn't exist the enormous diversity and complexity found in all mystical and spiritual traditions around the world.

You haven't studied enough diverse perspectives yet on spirituality. Which is why I warn people to be openminded and to never become loyal to any one teaching or teacher. You will develop a lopsided understanding of reality if you do that. Even if you manage to attain enlightenment.

I understand you dont have time to read all of the threads in their entirety.  But I dont need to study anything, it's all been worked out.  Saying that, I have read lots of spiritual books, and realized that most of it is corrupt versions of chips off the block of the grandaddy of all spiritual teachings, and the one that still churns out enlightened people by the thousands to this day.  Its the sampradaya, and its logic hasn't been successfully refuted since day one.

Nobody has to study shitloads of anything, all you need to do is sign onto the logic and let the knowledge do the work if youre qualified.  

Its absurd to say that you have to study vast mount of spiritual literature to gain freedom, where does that end exactly?  And it's just more object chasing.  And of course, you're speaking from your limited experience, I think youre conflating this limeltless consciousness thing with the objects again. Not your fault, but ignorance is always trying to throw us off course and that manifests itself as misinterpretations of the knowledge.  I've not heard any respectable teacher of the science of consciousness tell me I need to study all this stuff to gain freedom.  When you understand samsara, you can see the holes in most everything else.  Which is why I'm reluctant to swallow what you're saying, because a mind full of logical contradictions is not even remotely fit for inquiry into existence.

So I have just gone straight to the core knowledge rather than take a million year detour around the mystical wonderland of "consciousness".  Youre speaking about maya, and the objects in it, I'm speaking of freedom from maya.  Once you got that handled there is nothing else to do.  This is why the word "Upanishad" means the end of knowledge as it's the end of the spiritual search for meaning, and not just the knowledge presented at the end of each Veda.

If I was to take my chances between you and the sampradaya, I'm going to have to chose the sampradaya I'm afraid.

Sorry bout that.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by GTITurbolover

[Bizarre]

6 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:

Enlightenment could mean anything on this form awakening, savikalpa samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi, full enlightenment. We are not using same language.

Enlightenment only means one thing.  Liberation.  There are no stages to enlightenment either.  But you just pointed out a very big problem with the idea of "consciousness work": unless you got your definitions right and everyone is on the same page, any conversation about it is meaningless because the map gets corrupted and this is why we have this vast spiritual landscape of distorted teachings.

 

[Prabhaker]

29 minutes ago, GTITurbolover said:

Enlightenment only means one thing.  Liberation.

Correct definition of enlightenment is not very important for beginners. It is more important that people learn about meditation, grow into a meditator. They will find their own way. What they learnt about 'Liberation' initially is not critical.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Prabhaker