Forget about Enlightenment

[Shahrazad]

Sapius,

The real issue is… 'if one does not fall within my/our defined circle of morality/reality, then…' you know what.

You lost me.

[brokenhead]

If it were that easy, the police wouldn't need to do any investigation, would they? And courts of law would hardly be needed either. People would just be thrown in jail based on their looks.

Guess what? This happens a lot more frequently than most people think. People are stopped by police and questioned based on looks all the time. To think they are not often further detained is naive. Where I live is mainly white suburbia. Early in the morning, you can see groups of housewives out walking together, with one or more of them carrying a baseball bat. Clearly they have it for protection, they are not on their way to a softball game. I often imagine what would happen if a group of black teenagers were out there just walking and carrying a baseball bat. I imagine the township police vehicles making a rapid appearance, because one of those same housewives happened to be looking out the window and spotted the kids.

[David Quinn]

David,

me: the evidence of his mind being subpar is simply your opinion. Others have a different opinion. All you are really saying is you don't like Adya. Fine. You don't like him. But it is the attempt to couch this dislike into science that I find so appalling. I'm sure you believe what you are saying but the pure delusion of it is embarrassingly obvious.

you: It is not just a question of opinion or taste, but also one of expertise. Simply dismissing someone's view as a mere opinion doesn't take into account the possibility that the person involved might know what he is talking about. Everyone can have an opinion about quantum physics, for example, but it doesn't really mean anything if there is no expertise involved. A hairdresser's opinion of quantum theory doesn't carry the same weight as Einstein's or Bohr's opinion of it.

Claiming expertise and demonstrating it are two different things.

That goes without saying.

me: You have no idea of the breath of his teachings yet speak as if you know him intimately. That is being dishonest.

you: That is what you want to assume. I've seen quite a number of vidoes and writings, enough to make a judgment. The writings that Dan enthused over sound hollow to me, given that Adya himself is fully involved in the spiritual candy industry.

All you seem capable of is a blanket dismissal. Your unwillingness to quote and critique, which might lend a semblance of credibility to your words, exemplifies a lazy, dismissive attitude that bristles with hostility when challenged. Like a dog, you piss on everyone around you to let them know they are impinging on your territory.

It is completely beyond all that. I know you're a fan-boy of Adya and it is understandable that you would react to my criticisms of Adya in a defensive manner. But all I can do is call it as I see it and hope that you can awaken to the larger perspective that I am depicting.

I don't have any hostility towards Adya, nor do I revile him. He means nothing to me, at bottom - just as the thousands of other gurus he resembles mean nothing to me. What I fundamentally object to it is the mediocrity of it all, the generic nature of his teachings, the blandness, the way he slots so easily into the conventional pathways of a standard guru for the purpose of making himself palatable to shallow, neurotic Westerners.

To use a musical analogy, Kierkegaard and Chuang Tzu and their kind are like Mozart and Bach in that they are true artisans of the spirit. Their thoughts are breathtakingly original and profound. Adya, by contrast, is like Britney Spears, pumping out a generic formula with little originality or quality. My objection to Adya is that of the serious musical listener who sees little artistic value in the commercial fodder that constantly fills up the air-waves.

Now you could analyze Britney's songs and say, "Oh, that is a nice drum-fill there", or "She puts an unexpected little twist on the melody here", but it still won't hide the fact that it is generic, formulaic pop produced for the large lucrative market of insecure 14 year-old girls.

me: What seems to be going on in your comment is that you object to his style which is non-confrontational and you want to make that his problem. Your fundamentalist approach to teaching, your way or the highway, is sorely in need of some reconsideration.

you: His non-confrontational approach is indeed the problem. If a guru is not going to challenge the ego deeply, nor encourage his students to engage in this confrontation, then how and when is it ever going to happen?

Adya intuitively knows that if he confronts his audiences in any serious manner, he will become unpopular and his pay checks will quickly dry up.

Confrontation is not the only way to understanding, nor is it a very productive way, generally speaking. I’m not saying it can’t work, given the right temperament. But your idea that everyone must be confronted is simply that, your idea. It is a strategy, nothing more or less than any other strategy. Simply because it might have worked in your case does not justify you going around and beating everyone up. You cannot force anyone to give up anything anyway, what needs to be left behind must always be surrendered willingly. People are not stupid. They will see what needs to be surrendered in good time when they are ready and engaged. Someone who is not ready to surrender will not be any more ready no matter how much you confront them.

While that is true, it would still be nice to see these gurus make at least some attempt to open people's eyes to the deeper issues of the ego, instead of sweeping it all under the carpet and pretending that there are no issues at all.

One can see the consequences of this in your own case. For example, in previous posts you have mentioned that you believe humour, emotion, the feminine, etc, are part of "human nature" and have no connection to wisdom or ego. This is a standard viewpoint which comes straight out of the generic guru's textbook. Instead of helping people to face up to these deeper egotistical issues and deal with them properly, the generic guru instead encourages his followers to erect mental blocks and push these issues out of mind and out of sight. This is not healthy, in my book.

me: No altered states are induced. No one has ever mentioned experiencing an altered state simply by listening to him.

you: I find that very hard to believe. But if it is the case, then I put it down to a lack of memory and consciousness in his followers.

Adya himself has said altering consciousness is just a trick. Maybe you missed that part.

Again, such words are hollow, given that his career essentially consists of trying to alter people's consciousness through the use of hypnotic speech. Watching Adya say such things is like watching a TV evangelical preacher saying that money is the devil's tool.

me: Women and the feminine is your kick and something for you to deal with.

you: It is everyone's kick and something that everyone who is serious about giving up attachments and becoming wise has to deal with. But don't look to Adya and his ilk to help you in this. You will only draw a blank.

The feminine is part of human nature. You don’t give up human nature to remember who you are. In fact, you don’t become less human, you become MORE human.

One could just as easily rationalize murder and rape on the grounds that they are also a part of "human nature". People who use such phrases are simply trying to justify the things they are attached to. It is little different from saying that some behaviours are "Amercian", while others are "un-American".

What people need to grasp is that the feminine, along with emotion, humour, compassion, and yes, the masculine as well, are all part of our egotistical nature and need to be dealt with on that basis. It is impossible to be truly serious about eliminating the ego if one can't even recognize the sheer extent of what's involved. Gurus like Adya are preventing people from addressing these issues properly because he is narrowing their conception of the ego to include just a few obvious egotistical traits, while excluding the rest.

me: confrontation is not his approach, it is yours. He is not about struggle, struggling is not the key to anything other than more struggle. Only when you stop struggling can you see what is already present.

you: As I've mentioned previously, it is impossible to put an end to struggle if you still have egotistical attachments and unresolved issues bubbling away inside you. The best that can be achieved by trying to stop struggling altogether, rather like trying to turn off a switch, are temporary experiences of altered states (e.g. "seeing what is present"). No real progress can be made in this way.

I’m not saying he teaches trying not to struggle, or even not struggling. Struggling and not struggling is the duality which humans find themselves in. They think if it’s not one, it must be the other. That is the turning of the wheel itself, chasing answers within a duality. There is no “the way” to it. There is “your way” to it. He doesn’t encourage you to struggle or to not struggle, only to do what you do without the idea of getting something in return.

What about emotional rewards, good relationships with people, love, mental peace, good conscience, the blisses involved in being aware of the present, etc? Are you telling me that the people who attend Adya's lecture's aren't seeking these things?

Enlightenment isn’t a bargain, it is not a prize you get for following some rule someone tells you. Struggle is more obviously about getting something. What do you think you’re getting that isn’t already here?

Freedom from egotism and delusion. For most people, that is definitely something which is not already here.

-

[David Quinn]

Dan,

... Adya often undoes an entire satsang that might otherwise have been good with a single false statement - often in the form of an emotional pitch to his audience. This tends to indicate that either he's not aware of this and therefore not really operating from a solid basis of understanding, or he is aware and he's a fake on the make.

I'm not sure what you mean by "an emotional pitch;" you would have to give an example.

QRS does have a thing about emotion (the feminine, etc.) and the "need" to get rid of it that, as far as I can tell, has no basis in enlightenment teaching. I don't know where it came from.

It certainly has no basis in the bland, generic speech that usually passes for "enlightenment teaching" these days. But it's there in most of the major works nonetheless - the Dhammapada, Chuang Tzu's and Lao Tzu's writings, the various sutras, various Hindu works, and so on.

Most importantly, it is there for anyone who has the courage to open their eyes to Reality. Like humour, emotion is always triggered by illusion and always tied up with attachment and ego. This is something which is obvious to the mind when it becomes enlightened.

But, of course, people instinctively become emotional about this kind of talk and don't want to know about it. This is where the generic gurus come in, to soothe them and put them back to sleep again.

-

[David Quinn]

Perfection is such a lofty attainment and so difficult to succeed at that it is reasonable to assume no one in history has ever come anywhere near it. Yes, there have been some great sages in the past who have clearly understood the nature of Reality and gone a long way towards perfecting themselves in its light, but even these people still fell significantly short of the goal. I see flaws in all of these great sages of the past - Buddha, Jesus, Chuang Tzu, etc. This is not meant to be a slight on them, as I think they achieved marvellous things. I'm simply trying to convey the sheer scale of the project involved.

By perfect Buddhahood, I mean full consciousness of the nature of Reality in every waking moment, without interruption. In other words, being beyond all possibility of slipping back into delusion, even for a second. To my mind, the great sages of the past only managed to achieve partial success at this. While their intellectual understanding of the nature of Reality was immaculate, they were only able to experience this fundamental nature in a more direct sense, in full consciousness, on occasion. They were still in the grip of the more subtle, instinctual delusions imposed on us by evolution, which are very hard to overcome.

These kinds of delusions aren't intellectual in nature, but rather they centre around emotional reaction. For example, if a sage experiences a moment of fear, even if subtly, then it is a sign that he has lost full consciousness of Reality and fallen into the delusion that things really exist.

-

With all due respect, it is apparent that you do not know (personally, directly) what enlightenment is and associate it with a concept of perfection based on your worship of the Buddha.

Please read, or re-read my "Liberation" thread opener and then visit the website of the teacher who facilitated my awakening (Joel Morwood) at Center for Sacred Sciences.
Here is the address of the page which introduces him:

http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/ ... l#teachers

Joel, The other teachers mentioned on the above page (his "graduates") and myself, no longer a member of His center, as I founded the Center for Conscious Unity in '94 after my awakening
(http://www.consciousunity.org) all fulfill (truly) the criteria you present as:
"full consciousness of the nature of Reality in every waking moment, without interruption. In other words, being beyond all possibility of slipping back into delusion, even for a second."
Given your bias, I do not expect you to believe the above, but it is true, never the less.
I Am Consciousness, not the content of "my consciousness." "I" am the Witness of the "movie" called "my life." My last fear was that I would be eaten alive by sharks as I floated (just kicking on my back) in the ocean for hours before the current brought me back in on the day of my awakening. I have not experienced anger since. I weep with compassion at movies and "watching my own movie" and I am passionate about Liberation and correcting misconceptions about it... and "radical honesty" is my primary principle in confronting egocentricity, as on these boards.

You say, "To my mind, the great sages of the past only managed to achieve partial success at this (your above quote.)

I submit that this is only your "intellectual understanding" as you clearly have not experienced the transformation which liberates one totally from egocentricity into selflessness.

I agree that becoming enlightened is a transformative process, one that completely changes the nature of one's experiences and consciousness. But in truth, this is just the start of the long road to perfection. The habitual and instinctual delusions that have been accumulated not only from decades of own ignorant lifestyles since birth, but also from millions of years of evolution, have yet to be dealt with. It takes a lot of time and effort to eliminate all of these bugs from the system.

-

[Sapius]

Sapius,

The real issue is… 'if one does not fall within my/our defined circle of morality/reality, then…' you know what.

You lost me.

I was simply pointing out that David is not necessarily simply judging by facial features, which has somehow become the main issue, but he may be actually objecting to Adya’s method, which he must have looked into closely, but through his eyes only. And that (method) does not fit well into his preferred method or worldview. In a sense, Adya prefers a gradual psychotherapy, and David a shock treatment, both trying to show the poor patient the same light.

However, it was just a passing remark... :)

[samadhi]

bh,

me: If it were that easy, the police wouldn't need to do any investigation, would they? And courts of law would hardly be needed either. People would just be thrown in jail based on their looks.

you: Guess what? This happens a lot more frequently than most people think. People are stopped by police and questioned based on looks all the time.

Yeah, and do you think people like it? Do they accept it? Or do they scream like hell when it happens to them?

To think they are not often further detained is naive. Where I live is mainly white suburbia. Early in the morning, you can see groups of housewives out walking together, with one or more of them carrying a baseball bat. Clearly they have it for protection, they are not on their way to a softball game. I often imagine what would happen if a group of black teenagers were out there just walking and carrying a baseball bat. I imagine the township police vehicles making a rapid appearance, because one of those same housewives happened to be looking out the window and spotted the kids.

You are making my point! People judge by looks all the time and are vilified for it. They usually get it wrong. Why do they get it wrong? Could it be that looks don't really tell them anything about who the person is? Or are you here to praise all those people who judge others based on their looks?

[AlyOshA]

I just got a shiny new credit card in the mail. I love it! I am curious about spirituality but my Presbyterian Church down the street just ain't cuttin' it. I'm stressed out. I'm in debt. So I decided to give this spirituality thing a try. I got online with my shiny new credit card and ordered: True meditation: $19.95, Emptiness Dancing: $18.95, My Secrete is Silence: $17.00, Impact of Awakening: $17.00, The Spiritual Impulse: $10, Our Unborn Nature: $15.00, Turnaround of the Heart: $15.00, A Matter of Perspective: $15.00, and Awake in the Modern World: $10.00. Wow, I only spent $ 137.90! Well, this doesn't include taxes or shipping and handling but it's a fairly affordable cost for enlightenment.

David Quinn doesn't need my involvement, nor do I care to get involved, but I would like to add that his collection of excerpts from the cannon of Chuang Tzu is better than any of the published collections that I've read – and it's free. Chances are if you are spending money on a guru, they are not authentic and you will probably get no further than a moment of peace between your slave labor day job and your nightly spending sprees.

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is."
- L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd A. Eshbach, in 1949; quoted by Eshbach in OVER MY SHOULDER: REFLECTIONS ON A SCIENCE FICTION ERA, Donald M. Grant Publisher. ISBN 1-880418-11-8, 1983

Need I mention Joseph Smith or delve into the cornucopia of similar examples?

[samadhi]

David,

samadhi: All you seem capable of is a blanket dismissal. Your unwillingness to quote and critique, which might lend a semblance of credibility to your words, exemplifies a lazy, dismissive attitude that bristles with hostility when challenged. Like a dog, you piss on everyone around you to let them know they are impinging on your territory.

DQ: It is completely beyond all that. I know you're a fan-boy of Adya and it is understandable that you would react to my criticisms of Adya in a defensive manner. But all I can do is call it as I see it and hope that you can awaken to the larger perspective that I am depicting.

I have no problem with your not liking Adya. He isn't for everyone and certainly not for you. My problem is that your criticisms do not actually address anything he says but either his looks or your overall impression that is no different from simple prejudice. Like saying he is "too emotional." All that does is reflect your own feeling you get from listening to him. But you won’t say that because of course it would contradict your "man of logic" façade. All I am doing is pointing that out. Unfortunately a "man of logic" cannot see his own emotion. It takes someone else to do that for him.

I don't have any hostility towards Adya, nor do I revile him. He means nothing to me, at bottom - just as the thousands of other gurus he resembles mean nothing to me. What I fundamentally object to it is the mediocrity of it all, the generic nature of his teachings, the blandness, the way he slots so easily into the conventional pathways of a standard guru for the purpose of making himself palatable to shallow, neurotic Westerners.

Again, you don't want to address any actual teaching, only your impression of him. I am just trying to point out your emotional reaction. If you wanted to actually discuss a teaching, we could do that. That’s what I would expect from a "man of logic." Of course you won't do that and are unwilling to admit that your disinterest is a matter of feeling rather than any misguided teaching.

To use a musical analogy, Kierkegaard and Chuang Tzu and their kind are like Mozart and Bach in that they are true artisans of the spirit. Their thoughts are breathtakingly original and profound. Adya, by contrast, is like Britney Spears, pumping out a generic formula with little originality or quality. My objection to Adya is that of the serious musical listener who sees little artistic value in the commercial fodder that constantly fills up the air-waves.

You resort to metaphor to make your point. His actual words you won't address.

Now you could analyze Britney's songs and say, "Oh, that is a nice drum-fill there", or "She puts an unexpected little twist on the melody here", but it still won't hide the fact that it is generic, formulaic pop produced for the large lucrative market of insecure 14 year-old girls.

Yet he gets results. Something else you don't want to look at.

sam: Confrontation is not the only way to understanding, nor is it a very productive way, generally speaking. I'm not saying it can't work, given the right temperament. But your idea that everyone must be confronted is simply that, your idea. It is a strategy, nothing more or less than any other strategy. Simply because it might have worked in your case does not justify you going around and beating everyone up. You cannot force anyone to give up anything anyway, what needs to be left behind must always be surrendered willingly. People are not stupid. They will see what needs to be surrendered in good time when they are ready and engaged. Someone who is not ready to surrender will not be any more ready no matter how much you confront them.

DQ: While that is true, it would still be nice to see these gurus make at least some attempt to open people's eyes to the deeper issues of the ego, instead of sweeping it all under the carpet and pretending that there are no issues at all.

Please. It isn't his job to fix you. That's your job. And his approach isn't to look at each character flaw and throw it in your face. His approach is to help you see what is already present and doesn't need fixing. Once you see that, what needs changing, changes by itself.

One can see the consequences of this in your own case. For example, in previous posts you have mentioned that you believe humour, emotion, the feminine, etc, are part of "human nature" and have no connection to wisdom or ego. This is a standard viewpoint which comes straight out of the generic guru's textbook. Instead of helping people to face up to these deeper egotistical issues and deal with them properly, the generic guru instead encourages his followers to erect mental blocks and push these issues out of mind and out of sight. This is not healthy, in my book.

Okay. You and I have a basic disagreement about emotions and their place in what it means to be human. For you they seem to indicate some flaw or hindrance to awakening. For me, emotions are what makes a human being human. It doesn't mean the expression of hatred or rage are part of awakening. It means that humans can feel the whole range of emotions including those that lead to division and separation. On awakening, those emotions which express division and separation no longer have an ego to fuel them. Love, compassion, caring, the feminine as you call it, are all more available, not less, because those emotions are no longer hamstrung or manipulated by the ego.

sam: Adya himself has said altering consciousness is just a trick. Maybe you missed that part.

DQ: Again, such words are hollow, given that his career essentially consists of trying to alter people's consciousness through the use of hypnotic speech.

Please, the only altering I can attest to is sleepiness! And I've heard him dozens of times.

sam: Women and the feminine is your kick and something for you to deal with.

DQ: It is everyone's kick and something that everyone who is serious about giving up attachments and becoming wise has to deal with. But don't look to Adya and his ilk to help you in this. You will only draw a blank.

sam: The feminine is part of human nature. You don’t give up human nature to remember who you are. In fact, you don’t become less human, you become MORE human.

DQ: One could just as easily rationalize murder and rape on the grounds that they are also a part of "human nature".

They are a part of human nature but a part that feeds the ego based on division, separation, greed and domination. Love, compassion, caring, etc. do not do that.

People who use such phrases are simply trying to justify the things they are attached to. It is little different from saying that some behaviours are "Amercian", while others are "un-American".

Attachment is about ego. Sure, one can be attached to love as a means to feel better or even to dominate someone (although love in that sense is a manipulation, an appearance that plays on another’s emotion and not what is commonly referred to as love at all). When attachment is involved, the emotions can become more about manipulating than about a genuine expression. But without ego, such emotions don’t disappear, only one’s need to manipulate them to some other end. A genuine expression of love is not about attachment or ego. If love were not possible without ego, enlightenment would be worth precious little.

What people need to grasp is that the feminine, along with emotion, humour, compassion, and yes, the masculine as well, are all part of our egotistical nature and need to be dealt with on that basis.

You need to point to someone who actually teaches this besides yourself. I have never seen compassion, for example, associated with the ego. Yes, there can be attachment, practicing compassion out of a desire to create, preserve or promote an image. It doesn't mean compassion itself arises out of ego.

It is impossible to be truly serious about eliminating the ego if one can't even recognize the sheer extent of what's involved. Gurus like Adya are preventing people from addressing these issues properly because he is narrowing their conception of the ego to include just a few obvious egotistical traits, while excluding the rest.

No, you will never find Adya talking about compassion as an expression of ego. That's because it isn't. If you say it is, then tell me who else teaches that. If you can't point to anyone, why should I believe you in contradiction to my own experience and that of all teachers who have come before?

sam: QRS does have a thing about emotion (the feminine, etc.) and the "need" to get rid of it that, as far as I can tell, has no basis in enlightenment teaching. I don't know where it came from.

DQ: It certainly has no basis in the bland, generic speech that usually passes for "enlightenment teaching" these days. But it's there in most of the major works nonetheless - the Dhammapada, Chuang Tzu's and Lao Tzu's writings, the various sutras, various Hindu works, and so on.

Do you want to talk about the Tao? Chuang Tzu? Have at it. Do they reject emotion? Then please show it. Time to put up or shut up.

Most importantly, it is there for anyone who has the courage to open their eyes to Reality. Like humour, emotion is always triggered by illusion and always tied up with attachment and ego. This is something which is obvious to the mind when it becomes enlightened.

Well, here I am, open my eyes. Where is the teaching that humor or emotion are to be abandoned? You keep repeating it but when I ask you to show it, you do a lot of hand-waving and little else.

But, of course, people instinctively become emotional about this kind of talk and don't want to know about it. This is where the generic gurus come in, to soothe them and put them back to sleep again.

Well, I want to know about it. Show me. Let's look at the Tao. How about this:

The Master views the parts with compassion,
because he understands the whole.
His constant practice is humility.
He doesn't glitter like a jewel
but lets himself be shaped by the Tao,
as rugged and common as stone. (v 39, Mitchell trans.)

Hmm, compassion. Surprised?

sam: I’m not saying he teaches trying not to struggle, or even not struggling. Struggling and not struggling is the duality which humans find themselves in. They think if it’s not one, it must be the other. That is the turning of the wheel itself, chasing answers within a duality. There is no “the way” to it. There is “your way” to it. He doesn’t encourage you to struggle or to not struggle, only to do what you do without the idea of getting something in return.

DQ: What about emotional rewards, good relationships with people, love, mental peace, good conscience, the blisses involved in being aware of the present, etc? Are you telling me that the people who attend Adya's lecture's aren't seeking these things?

Everyone wants to feel better, okay? That's not a bad thing, it's just the way things are. Everyone comes to an enlightenment teaching wanting to feel better and end their suffering. That is where you start. When there is some understanding, one realizes enlightenment is not about problem-solving, feeling better, or in your case, either attaining some kind of perfect logic or getting rid of emotion. It is about what is prior to all that. It is not about a future moment but about what is being overlooked in the present moment. Struggle is invariably about the future, getting something that isn’t here in the present. But you can’t struggle for what you already have. Nor can you stop struggling if you think there is something you need. Adya teaches the direct approach, what you already are right now. For some, that's not enough, they want something else. As long as you think you need a brilliant mind infused with impeccable logic to attain enlightenment, struggle will be part of your path.

sam: Enlightenment isn't a bargain, it is not a prize you get for following some rule someone tells you. Struggle is more obviously about getting something. What do you think you’re getting that isn’t already here?

DQ: Freedom from egotism and delusion. For most people, that is definitely something which is not already here.

Egotism (which is delusion) is here because that is what you see. As long as you see yourself as an ego, you will act as an ego. The question is, are you an ego? That kind of question is not simply about saying "no." You yourself use logic to point out the inconsistencies of egotism. An intellectual understanding is not the point. One can have all the understanding in the world and still live as an ego. Just like you can know all about wealth but without the actual experience of wealth, live as a poor man; without the actual experience of awakening, your intellect cannot take you beyond the bounds of your ego. Awakening is about this moment, not a future moment. Trying to awaken is the ego's method based on gathering knowledge, awakening itself is about seeing what you really are right now, regardless of what any knowledge or learning the future could bring. There is always more knowledge to gather but what doesn't need gathering is already present for you to see.

[samadhi]

Aly,

I just got a shiny new credit card in the mail. I love it! I am curious about spirituality but my Presbyterian Church down the street just ain't cuttin' it. I'm stressed out. I'm in debt. So I decided to give this spirituality thing a try. I got online with my shiny new credit card and ordered: True meditation: $19.95, Emptiness Dancing: $18.95, My Secrete is Silence: $17.00, Impact of Awakening: $17.00, The Spiritual Impulse: $10, Our Unborn Nature: $15.00, Turnaround of the Heart: $15.00, A Matter of Perspective: $15.00, and Awake in the Modern World: $10.00. Wow, I only spent $ 137.90! Well, this doesn't include taxes or shipping and handling but it's a fairly affordable cost for enlightenment.

David Quinn doesn't need my involvement, nor do I care to get involved, but I would like to add that his collection of excerpts from the cannon of Chuang Tzu is better than any of the published collections that I've read – and it's free. Chances are if you are spending money on a guru, they are not authentic and you will probably get no further than a moment of peace between your slave labor day job and your nightly spending sprees.

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is."
- L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd A. Eshbach, in 1949; quoted by Eshbach in OVER MY SHOULDER: REFLECTIONS ON A SCIENCE FICTION ERA, Donald M. Grant Publisher. ISBN 1-880418-11-8, 1983

Need I mention Joseph Smith or delve into the cornucopia of similar examples?

If you want to talk about money, let's do it.

For starters, money as evil is dogma. If you want to show that someone charging for their services is wrong, make the case but don't expect us to take your belief as the last word.

Second, just because there are charlatans doesn't mean everyone is a charlatan. That is cynicism. Don't say x is phony because y is phony. That won't cut it here.

You're off to a poor start. I hope you can do better next time ... lol.

[divine focus]

[

Enlightenment isn’t a bargain, it is not a prize you get for following some rule someone tells you. Struggle is more obviously about getting something. What do you think you’re getting that isn’t already here?

Freedom from egotism and delusion. For most people, that is definitely something which is not already here.

-

Umm, I don't know about this...

Where else could it be?

Instead of trying, instead of doing, just be. The shift from doing to being is freedom. You already are! You can still do things, but do it from being. Being needs to be the focus.

[mikiel]

David:
"I agree that becoming enlightened is a transformative process, one that completely changes the nature of one's experiences and consciousness. But in truth, this is just the start of the long road to perfection. The habitual and instinctual delusions that have been accumulated not only from decades of own ignorant lifestyles since birth, but also from millions of years of evolution, have yet to be dealt with. It takes a lot of time and effort to eliminate all of these bugs from the system."

David,
You are welcome to speak for yourself (your "truth"), but it is presumptuous to project your conceptual ideal of perfection onto others as part of your concept of enlightenment.
My "habitual and instinctual delusions"... the whole egocentric conditioning program, "popped" in '94 and left "me" free of all delusion.
Of course there was preparation. 25 yrs of daily meditation, an hour a day. Two months of sitting 8-12 hrs/day. A near death experience. (Dunno if you read any of my site... Journey to Awakening... of Joel's site equating enlightenment to this same selflessness I have experienced since awakening.
When the "bubble" ("me in here... not-me out there") finally "pops", the delusion of separation from the Divine is gone, and Unity in Identity with Omnipresent Consciousness (by whatever name) is the result... the permanent estate of 'conscious unity.'

It doesn't concern me whether you believe this or not , but it is universal Truth among all "enlightened ones." Just FYI, whether you "get it" or not.
mikiel

[samadhi]

mikiel,

Could you say something about enlightenment and emotions? I do feel you are speaking from direct experience and can add some insight for us as to how they intersect.

Also, the idea of enlightenment being not about what happens in the future as something you prepare for but about what it is already present and overlooked.

Do you know about Adya? What is your take on him? He also talks about the awakening experience as just the beginning. Yes, something does end and ends for good when awakening happens but for many people there is also the experience of, "I lost it, how do I get it back?" I take it that hasn't been your experience?

[mikiel]

mikiel,

Could you say something about enlightenment and emotions? I do feel you are speaking from direct experience and can add some insight for us as to how they intersect.

Also, the idea of enlightenment being not about what happens in the future as something you prepare for but about what it is already present and overlooked.

Do you know about Adya? What is your take on him? He also talks about the awakening experience as just the beginning. Yes, something does end and ends for good when awakening happens but for many people there is also the experience of, "I lost it, how do I get it back?" I take it that hasn't been your experience?

Thanks for your sincere inquiry. "Emotions" is a tricky concept, because it means something to folks prior to enlightenment, but "they" are totally transformed when egocentricity falls away and selfess Realization ("I Am Consciousness") takes its place.
Most emotions are based on personal attachments of various kinds.

Fear, for instance, ultimately boils down to the survival instinct, but anything that threatens individual safety, status, etc., is a cause of fear for everyone who still thinks s/he IS somebody, i.e., that personal identity/self is real. When there is no longer any illusion of "self" as separate from omnipresent consciousness, fear naturally falls away. Likewise, anger. Attachment to a certain outcome based on "This is who I am"... and all the "programs" of the culturally conditionse "robot", the egocentric "me."

Compassion transcends such "personal emotions." So does joy/bliss.
Suffering happens without a "sufferer", but compasion remains whether "this one or that one/or ones" are experiencing suffering. Always, the motivation is there to relieve the suffering however possible.
Love is transformed from the kind of personal, posessive, jealous "I'm yours and you're mine" kind of "love" to actual Divine Love constantly present and totally unconditional.

As to your second question, consciousness is omnipresent whether individual realize It or not. The illusion of self believes it"self" to be separate and "have" an individual consciosness. Of course we all have individual perspectives... *what we are aware of*... but enlightenment is realizing that we are the Awareness, not the content of it, not the "what" above.
Folks will have "flashes" of this realization, or "peak experiences" of all varieties. But enlightenment itself is full and permanent realization "That I Am Consciousness*, no longer "my" but The Consciousness, same One in all, here and throughout the cosmos.

During the 25 years of daily meditation prior to my awakening I always had a feeling of transcendental bliss during meditation, I truth, this is what made it part of my daily routine all those years. I have no "discipline" whatsoever as in doing something that is difficult to obtain some worthwhile goal. So I had long since given up on "attainment of enlightenment" and was content with my hour a day of bliss beyond all of life's dramas. It was very helpful in my life too, as a peaceful center within for all my activites. But I was still "me" as an individual identity until all my attachments were fianlly exhausted, as shared in my "Journey."

I am not familiar with Adya.
Hope this answers your questions. Thanks for asking.
mikiel

[xerox]

...

[Alex Jacob]

What sort of meditation did you do, Mikail? (It always seemed to me there were different 'moods' associated with different techniques of meditation. To say 'trancendental bliss', for example, would seem to indicate that it was not a Buddhist practice, since they don't use those terms. It would seem that your style of meditation was more Indian-Hindu...)

[samadhi]

mikiel,

I appreciate what you've written. I never saw enlightenment as the "overcoming" of emotions. Obviously the ego can use emotions as a payoff or a manipulation and can become enmeshed in them as well. But to make emotion the problem rather than the ego seems a backward approach. Ultimately, one cannot even see ego as a "problem" as that is will only become another excuse to continue the struggle.

When you said meditation wasn't a discipline for you but only the doing of what you loved, I thought, "of course." I did meditation myself for a number of years. There were moments when it was quite effortless and blissful but it was never self-sustaining in that sense. I eventually stopped doing it. Now I do the internet. I wish I could do the sitting.

I think it's great that you're here. I find it ironic and amusing that on a forum devoted to enlightenment, you go unrecognized. Maybe that shouldn't be surprising. In any case, I hope you continue to stop by and share your rare and valuable perspective.

[mikiel]

What sort of meditation did you do, Mikail? (It always seemed to me there were different 'moods' associated with different techniques of meditation. To say 'trancendental bliss', for example, would seem to indicate that it was not a Buddhist practice, since they don't use those terms. It would seem that your style of meditation was more Indian-Hindu...)

Hi Alex,
As far back as I can remember I've had an inner tone (probably just my auditory nerve "humming", but very subtly, requiring "deep listening" to hear it.) Even as a young boy, I'd sit in a favorite place and just listen to nature and this inner tone... very peaceful.

As a young man, I practiced "Transcendental Meditation" in two sessions a day, a half hour each... this for five years. But the mantra, tho not vocalized aloud, would keep me aware of a certain tension in my throat (from the sub-vocalization as it is repeated mentally.) So I gave up TM and went back to my natural inner tone... which has been my "portal" into transcendence ever since.

Other than that 5 yrs of TM, I have never been affiliated with any group or Tradition, and I teach meditation as presented on my "Meditation" page at http://www.consciousunity.org.

Appreciating the dialogue here.
mikiel

[mikiel]

mikiel,

I appreciate what you've written. I never saw enlightenment as the "overcoming" of emotions. Obviously the ego can use emotions as a payoff or a manipulation and can become enmeshed in them as well. But to make emotion the problem rather than the ego seems a backward approach. Ultimately, one cannot even see ego as a "problem" as that is will only become another excuse to continue the struggle.

When you said meditation wasn't a discipline for you but only the doing of what you loved, I thought, "of course." I did meditation myself for a number of years. There were moments when it was quite effortless and blissful but it was never self-sustaining in that sense. I eventually stopped doing it. Now I do the internet. I wish I could do the sitting.

I think it's great that you're here. I find it ironic and amusing that on a forum devoted to enlightenment, you go unrecognized. Maybe that shouldn't be surprising. In any case, I hope you continue to stop by and share your rare and valuable perspective.

samadhi,
Thanks for your kindness.
I find all kinds in my meditation circle at the Center for Conscious Unity, from novices to seasoned meditators.
I do my best to help those who struggling to get over it, relax and surrender to the Omnipresent Grace in whatever way best suites each.
Ego never wants to give up "identity" without a fight. My finale' after all those years was a near death experience in which nothing "mattered" anymore... then my "baggage drifted out to sea" so to speak.
But prior to awaking, most can find a way to enjoy sitting quietly, whatever the "form."
My "Meditation" page is a nutshell version of the meditation basics I share at the Center. (http://www.consciousunity.org... for easy ref.)
Thanks again.
mikiel

[David Quinn]

David:
"I agree that becoming enlightened is a transformative process, one that completely changes the nature of one's experiences and consciousness. But in truth, this is just the start of the long road to perfection. The habitual and instinctual delusions that have been accumulated not only from decades of own ignorant lifestyles since birth, but also from millions of years of evolution, have yet to be dealt with. It takes a lot of time and effort to eliminate all of these bugs from the system."

David,
You are welcome to speak for yourself (your "truth"), but it is presumptuous to project your conceptual ideal of perfection onto others as part of your concept of enlightenment.
My "habitual and instinctual delusions"... the whole egocentric conditioning program, "popped" in '94 and left "me" free of all delusion.

And yet I have noticed in your posts that you have anger issues, that you quickly become short-tempered with those who challenge you.

I've also noticed that your speech, particularly about spiritual issues, is very scripted and mannered. Reading one of your posts is like reading a generic Hindu text. It is as though you have to put on a mental uniform in order to talk about these things. You don't seem to have the freedom to talk about Reality in a natural manner, or to be able to describe it in a thousand different ways. This suggests to me that your understanding is compartmentalized and doesn't really impact on the emotional part of your existence.

So I think you still do have quite a few bugs to eliminate from the system.

Of course there was preparation. 25 yrs of daily meditation, an hour a day. Two months of sitting 8-12 hrs/day. A near death experience. (Dunno if you read any of my site... Journey to Awakening... of Joel's site equating enlightenment to this same selflessness I have experienced since awakening.
When the "bubble" ("me in here... not-me out there") finally "pops", the delusion of separation from the Divine is gone, and Unity in Identity with Omnipresent Consciousness (by whatever name) is the result... the permanent estate of 'conscious unity.'

It doesn't concern me whether you believe this or not , but it is universal Truth among all "enlightened ones." Just FYI, whether you "get it" or not.

I'm wondering whether this "popping" was really just a mental skill that you suddenly acquired of being able to thrust your consciousness into the narrow compartment of your spiritual understanding and thereby freeing yourself from your unresolved emotional issues by way of distancing from them. In other words, the emotional issues are still there, but you able to block them out (at least occasionally) by isolating portions of your mind into separate compartments.

I see this characteristic quite a lot in spiritual gurus and their followers, particularly in the generic ones. A person has a sudden insight or experience of unity, diligently cultivates the re-experience of it via meditation and sets up home in it, falsely believing that this is enlightenment. Although this behaviour is contrived and infinitely removed from true wisdom, he is able to find support for it from the many generic spiritual texts that have been written by gurus who themselves have fallen into the same trap.

-

[brokenhead]

bh,

me: If it were that easy, the police wouldn't need to do any investigation, would they? And courts of law would hardly be needed either. People would just be thrown in jail based on their looks.

you: Guess what? This happens a lot more frequently than most people think. People are stopped by police and questioned based on looks all the time.

Yeah, and do you think people like it? Do they accept it? Or do they scream like hell when it happens to them?

To think they are not often further detained is naive. Where I live is mainly white suburbia. Early in the morning, you can see groups of housewives out walking together, with one or more of them carrying a baseball bat. Clearly they have it for protection, they are not on their way to a softball game. I often imagine what would happen if a group of black teenagers were out there just walking and carrying a baseball bat. I imagine the township police vehicles making a rapid appearance, because one of those same housewives happened to be looking out the window and spotted the kids.

You are making my point! People judge by looks all the time and are vilified for it. They usually get it wrong. Why do they get it wrong? Could it be that looks don't really tell them anything about who the person is? Or are you here to praise all those people who judge others based on their looks?

I think I am backing up your point.

[David Quinn]

Enlightenment isn’t a bargain, it is not a prize you get for following some rule someone tells you. Struggle is more obviously about getting something. What do you think you’re getting that isn’t already here?

Freedom from egotism and delusion. For most people, that is definitely something which is not already here.

-

Umm, I don't know about this...

Where else could it be?

Instead of trying, instead of doing, just be. The shift from doing to being is freedom. You already are! You can still do things, but do it from being. Being needs to be the focus.

The trouble is, if your mind is still spellbound by ego and therefore still deluded, then any attempt to just "be" within this state of affairs will only result in your remaining egotistical and deluded.

One cannot become enlightened simply through wishful thinking and pretending that one's delusions do not exist. That will only thrust you into a fool's paradise.

Blocking out realities and engaging in forgetfulness isn't enlightened behaviour. It is a contrivance, which has no connection to the consciousness and freedom of the truly-enlightened individual.

I would say that at least 99% of those who believe they are enlightened are living in a fool's paradise, and this includes most of the the gurus who grace our world.

-

[brokenhead]

DQ writes:

I see this characteristic quite a lot in spiritual gurus and their followers, particularly in the generic ones. A person has a sudden insight or experience of unity, diligently cultivates the re-experience of it via meditation and sets up home in it, falsely believing that this is enlightenment. Although this behaviour is contrived and infinitely removed from true wisdom, he is able to find support for it from the many generic spiritual texts that have been written by gurus who themselves have fallen into the same trap.

And historically, the generic spiritual texts seem to be published in larger quantity towards the end of a century.

David, I get your point here and agree with it, but I think I am less quick to dismiss the "diligent" activity you describe in this quote. There is nothing "contrived" about meditation. Although I am by nature suspicious of anyone who claims to be "enlightened," I do not doubt that enlightened individuals exist. Their paths to enlightenment are may be varied.

[Shahrazad]

sam said to mikiel:

I find it ironic and amusing that on a forum devoted to enlightenment, you go unrecognized.

I have two points here.

(1) How do you know that nobody has recognized him? I bet some have.

(2) Why would an enlightened person care if he is given recognition? He doesn't need it.

-

[samadhi]

Sher,

How do you know that nobody has recognized him? I bet some have.

I was just going by the responses he has received, on this thread and the one he started.

Why would an enlightened person care if he is given recognition? He doesn't need it.

I never implied he should care. But the irony of his being unrecognized on this forum of all places is worthy of note.