HI Orlando-

The Hindu tells us that reality is lila. literally, the play of God. Buddhists tell us that it is attachment to something.

But here's an experiment - Notice something that attracts you to study it. So you study. Then  there passes a new thought, observation, feeling, or whatever. Most of the time you observe and ignore. No change. But occasionally you are attracted to the side trip, and that's the hook that seems to bind us here.

Notice what you would have to do to stop being here - it's as simple as holding your breath.  All the other functions come to a focal point at that time, and then you go "elsewhere". But we persist in breathing, and thus we persist in being here as we are. Further, if you use some kind of trick to stop breathing, that reifies the necessity to breathe, which brings you right back to where you left off when you suicided. So, in that sense, everything is just a matter of what we are interested in, and how much interest we have.

I actually tried this when in my 20s, and a lot healthier and more robust. I knew that there are physical mechanisms by which the body resets itself, else, if we got the breath knocked out of us while hunting and gathering, we'd simply die. So I deliberately held my breath until I passed out - a rather uncomfortable thing to do - and my body seems to have reset itself - although maybe I'm actually dead and all of this is a dream? Anyway, I went to a new point of perspective, couldn't understand what I saw and experienced there, and promptly returned with a gasp. Now, 50 years later, it begins to make sense. While I DO NOT suggest that anyone follow my example, it can be done, and it makes sense with respect to attachments. (I suggest that the reason I "returned" was that the effort to suppress breathing was reification of a felt need to have breath - an attachment - that I carried into the "other place of awareness" - so it brought me back to the place I had left off. It's like a mini-suicide, but not quite as terminal.)

dave

First of all, since this topic isn't brand new, some of what I say will repeat what I've said before. Sorry about that.

Source being started out with the ability to be aware, and the ability to create.  These two aspects of being are inseparable from each other, even though there are ways to focus on one aspect of being, rather than on both aspects. When exactly love came into the equation I don't know.

Since the creative aspect of being can't be seperated from source being, there is nothing wrong with using it, even though using it leads to problems at times. In fact, it would be rather odd if the creative aspect of being wasn't utilized.

The goal is to get to the point where we are in control of our creative aspect of being, so we can use it according to divine wisdom and love, rather than imperfect limiting ideas and attachments. One of the benefits of incarnating physically is that it provides us with a unique opportunity to learn how to control our creative aspect of being. My feeling is that incarnations are chosen according to need, rather than forced.

I figure that awareness is aware of and has the ability to understand everything that takes place within it. Problems develop when limited ways of perception and understanding are taken on. When this happens awareness understands according to such limitations rather than according to what is true and all encompasing.

In the beginning source being existed as an infinite field of awareness that had the ability to create. This creative ability was in an unmodified state until it was utilized in specific ways. How exactly the initial steps of creation took place I don't know. Perhaps the creative energy that existed had random fluctations. Because awareness has the ability to establish relationships and comprehend what takes place within it,  it started to recognize some patterns as its creative energy fluctuated in various ways. For example, in some places the energy might've vibrated faster than other places. Sometimes it was more dense. Because awareness wasn't limited by time and was spread out infinitely, it took no time at all before it understood relationships well enough, so it could start creating intentionally. I figure that at some point it realized that it can cause its creative ability to fluctuate through the application of intent.  Once again, when precisely love came into the equation I don't know.

Perhaps at some point the prime source noticed that it was alone.  It was able to figure that if it used its ability to create in specific ways, different parts of itself would take on the "appearance" of being something other than itself.  It figured the appearance factor is okay,  because what determines reality is what awareness experiences, not a mental understanding, even if that mental understanding is representative of what is "primarily true." If one considers that past, present and future all happen in the same now, the limiting effect of "primarily true" is minimized (more about this later).

If one thinks about it, as soon as awareness starts comparing one perceived thing with other perceived things, a field of relationships is established and experienced. If awareness didn't create anything at all, there wouldn't be anything to be aware of.

Some might say that love existed from the start and prime awareness had this to be aware of.  If it is taken for granted this is true, what would be the meaning of love if prime awareness had nobody to share love with? It might feel good, but would be lacking in complete meaning. The same is true with the experience of oneness. What does oneness mean, if there isn't anybody to share it with? Because source being used its creative energy so that many other beings could appear within itself, it became possible for many beings to share oneness together. The key to understanding that the result of such creation is valid (as opposed to being nothing but an illusion as some philosophies contend), is to remember how the awareness aspect of being and the creative aspect of being are both real. Therefore, whatever results when the two work together is real.

Vedanta (A system of thought that comes from India and really stresses the word "enlightenment) contends that only that which is permanent is real. Therefore, anything that is created isn't the ultimate reality.  Not only does this way of thinking not acknowledge the creative aspect of being I spoke of above, it doesn't recognize that past, present and future all exist in the same "now." Therefore, whatever is created throughout time as we perceive it (in a linear way), doesn't come to an end. Rather, in a simultaneous manner; the creation that takes place in supposed past, present and future, works itself out so that a perfected end is reached.

One thing that is important to understand is that when we reach our final goal, our awareness isn't going to be limited as it is now. We'll find that we are beings who are capable of being much more aware than we allow ourselves to be now.  Even though we'll find ourselves in a state where we experience perfect peace, divinity, a vast feeling of love, oneness, and a level of knowledge that has all the answers that were sought when source being decided to go through the process of creation; we'll find that our awareness has the room to be aware of even more. What is this "more" I speak of? I'm unable to say what this "more" is all about.  But one "more" is the wonderful sense of relief, appreciation and happiness that results when we see how things are compared to how they were when we took part in limited states of confusion.

This is how things felt for me when I had what I've refered to in the past as my night in heaven experience. I felt a great sense relief and appreciative about how things turned out. Some might say that this sense of relief and appreciation would be passing, but this is a linear mind way of thinking about things. When we live in a no time realm, everything we worked for while in linear time,  has a lasting effect.

The fact of how we no longer limit our awareness adds to this fact. For example, during my night in heaven experience,  I was able to understand how God and the afterlife are possible, and that everything works out wonderfully in the end, without having to think about it on a thought by thought basis. This was because I was connected to the oneness that contained this understanding. Numerous near death experiencers etc speak of having an experience where "everything" is understood.

So to conclude, the state of being we are aiming for isn't simply a state of bliss. It is state of being where we experience on various levels. There have been a number of occasions where I've experienced bliss and it didn't seem like time mattered during such experiences or that I needed anything else. Yet when such experiences were over I understood that much more is available.  There is love, oneness (which sort of relates to bliss in terms of how it feels), and what the process of creation brings.  On a few occasions my spirit guidance has made a point of pointing out that there is more to life than bliss after I've had an experience of bliss. For one thing, the sweetness of love isn't apparent during experiences of bliss. There was a very strong feeling of peace and a feeling of vastness.  There was even a feeling of divinity, despite the absence of love. I guess there is more than one way to feel good.  To me the happiness and love that is experienced when the presence of others is acknowledged, is preferable to the seeming indifference bliss seems to contain.

P.S. I'm still figuring it out, so hopefully I'll have more to add in the future.

Something else came to mind.

One of the things that establishes the ability for uniqueness and oneness to exist at the same time, is the fact of how each of us has the ability to create our own reality. Certainly such an ability is more than just an illusion.

Or consider this. You sit in a room and have a conversation with a friend. The oneness you share doesn't get negated simply because the oneness manifested as two parcels of energy/awareness beings that are able to think for themselves.  Why can't oneness be multifaceted?

I see no reason to deny that I can sit in a room and use one hand to scratch an itch on the other, despite the obvious fact that they are essentially one and the same. While being used as separate elements, they essentially take on that role. Isn't this more or less the way that a single Source radiates all beings?

Looking a bit less severely at the issue, it would be a real nuisance to discover, while kissing my wife, that actually I'm just ... er.... doing it to myself. 

Or worse, what if all realized that we are God, but would have different opinions about how to run the world. That kind of thing could lead to wars etc. In fact, wars (as well as Inquisitions and torture camps) seem to have a strong flavor of that kind of thinking.  "I'm God, and I'm really going to stick it to you because you disagree with me ... blah blah blah." There seems to be a good basis for considering those who take such a posture to be mentally incompetent.

But to start out playing this bizarre game of blind man's bluff, trying to figure out who we are and what we can do, especially with rules that force us to learn at every turn, seems to be ultimately (but not necessarily in each instance) a useful way to rediscover our own divinity without forcing us to play all our games with ourselves.

dave

Hi Vajra-
Your approach to enlightenment is the only one that makes sense to me. It can occur rather abruptly, in a great leap, or it can occur over time, snail style, but I agree that it seems to be a process. It's rather like life, a matter of how we transition, rather than some abstract end point. If it were simply an end state, life would be like playing music as fast as possible in order to reach the end, which seems to miss the essence of what we're doing here.

The issue that comes to my mind at this point is whether enlightenment is essentially an evolved awareness of information, or essentially attitude, the reaction to our relationship to information, or is it both, which would mean everything but the material grounding of all this stuff.

dave

Thanks Dave. I'd have to say though that what I've written is not original, just a personal take on what ACIM and Buddhist thought on the topic have to say and what makes most sense to me.

My best guess on the sudden versus progressive enlightenment question is that it's exactly exactly what you say. Perhaps the sudden variety is the result of final breakthrough or flash of insight or seeing which gets past what was maybe a single but very significant delusion or obscuration which on it's own was powerful enough and wide ranging enough in it's application to affect all sorts of parts of the person's life. (and mask the progress made by the stripping away of all sorts of other lesser delusions to get to that point)

Others may have perhaps more delusions, but more minor and of less obvious consequence. So that their stripping away one by one creates the impression of a more gradual process. Both are (barring the possibility of some sort of wholesale externally applied reload and reboot of the mind to run a new programme) presumably process based though in that the individual has to continue to function while it's going on.

Although in truth I don't truly have a clue as to what the possibilities are - we're talking something involving Grace and as such not necessarily amenable to our simplistic cause and consequence based logic.

Bernadette Roberts book 'The Experience of No Self' is probably the most detailed and moving (if still fairly qualitative) description of the enlightenment experience that I've come across. http://books.google.ie/books?id=1WaPQVWIZukC&dq=Bernadette+Roberts&prev=http://w... Wikipedia has a biopic and summary of her experience here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Roberts . Despite her being a Catholic contemplative her experience correlates pretty much exactly with Buddhist descriptions of what it entails. (her first contacts with Buddhism were when the process was well down the road and she was seeking explanations)

On the evolved awareness vs. attitude issue. My sense is that enlightenment starts with a change in view (the Buddhist word) or attitude - which is the result of insight(s) leading to the crumbling of previous 'knowns' in Robert Monroe language and their replacement by new ones.

But that this new view in essence throws open the 'doors of perception' ( where did we hear that before??)  - that previously unavailable capability (shut down by or obscured by the ego to maintain it's self serving view of 'reality' in our awareness) enables access to/the perception of other realities (made up of the ability to access non-ordinary experience, access to higher information perhaps from the I there and maybe more, and greatly increased wisdom and intuition) and previously unperceived aspects of our current reality. (this latter most obviously includes empathy or the ability to truly see and be driven by a care for the other's view)

The insight (or progressive insights) is perhaps the seed. Which as above is normally blocked by ego which uses selective perception to its own ends. Which is why meditation and experience are so important.

Meditation ('no thought') by stilling the mind reduces the vigilance of the ego and enables the possibility of information sneaking past the screen of selective perception. Or slows down our jumping to conclusions (instinctively reacting) enough that we get the chance to consciously apply logic to the incoming information leading to unavoidable conclusions which conflict with what the ego would like us to think. The mindfulness, single pointedness and awareness it creates means we pick up far more of the available data, and are better able to process it.

Experience has the same effect. If we can raise the will to trial (wise and practical - not half assed) actions which go against our instinctive selfish ways  (like engaging in selfless actions to help others for example - good spiritual teaching plays its part here in prompting us in what are wise and loving actions) we may experience positive outcomes via routes and mechanisms we'd not considered possible given our previous dog eat dog framework.

So again the conflict with prior knowns arises (they are seen to be untrue), we replace them with the new and so become something else. And ultimately if we keep this up for long enough we become enlightened.

Ego by the way is presumably just one big but wrong 'known'. (the mistaken view that selfishness is the best way to live, the route to happiness) Meaning perhaps that sudden enlightenment could maybe be some major flash of insight which overturns the entire edifice. It may be though that we simply don't have the ability to make leaps of that magnitude from a standing start.

One of the most interesting aspects of enlightenment (as it is written of in the Eastern traditions, but fits with the above too) is the idea that it's only the beginning. That having collapsed the old 'knowns' it takes time and life experience (probably lives) to replace them with new ones inspired by the new view. That we have to go off and live the new view to generate experience and hence new knowns. Meaning that a 'newbie' enlightened person may get it wrong at times until they have it all figured out.

All this of course is only one view of what might go down. When you are dealing with a force (mind) that can transcend space and time and act out of conscious awareness almost anything is possible.

Which again makes it kind of lucky that it's practice (meditation and experience) that gets us there, not thinking about it...

  Not sure why this thread may have died, but if my verbosity was to blame then please pardon me!!

The argument set out above is that enlightenment is possibly a process, and that even if it occurs it's likely to be simply the beginning of learning to live from an altered view. Meaning that there's no reason to think that an enlightened person (at least initially) is necessarily going to live like some sort of omniscient all compassionate being.

Osho's worldly imperfections are it seems fairly widely documented http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html , and yet what I've read written by  him has for me always been 100% credible. Doing a bit of digging on him I tripped over this article which seems a fairly balanced if warts and all account. ( his predilection for panty-less Buddhalicious babes may well cause some indigestion, but is not it seems necessarily proof of his non-enlightenment)

More interesting I also tripped over UG Krishnamurti (not J Krishnamurti) and his writings on the subject of enlightenment. He was an Indian gent widely accepted as having been enlightened who died early this year.

The little I've read so far is very interesting indeed - he basically insists that while enlightenment is real that it's impossible to teach anything that helps us towards it (any more than you can teach a smell - it can only be experienced), that seeking is actually a barrier, and that the enlightened person is subject to all of the same desires etc as normal and most definitely is not in some way omniscient.

He holds that the idea that it in some way confers such capabilities is a fabrication by the spirituality industry. Which perhaps explains the contradictions inherent in Osho!!

More reading need to comment with any sort of perspective comment on him. Here's some clips of him speaking on this and other topics: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ug%20krishnamurti&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&s...

More: http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/ug_video/index.html

Many of his books are available on Amazon - for example 'The Mystique of Enlightenment' http://books.google.ie/books?id=DymPVtco6jIC&dq=The+Mystique+of+ENlightenment&pg...

This stuff is important - it has potentially enormous implications for how we view life and the path....