Enlightenment Finally

[David Quinn]

And this involves reacting to the arisal of pain and instantly nullifying it?

Not nullifying pain but doing what needs to be done which in this case is cleaning up the mind.

Cleaning what from it?

-

[maestro]

Cleaning up the energy wasting dysfunctional habits.

[David Quinn]

Like smoking?

-

[maestro]

A good time to summarize.

observational Faculty aka third eye:

A module in the brain which can see very clearly thoughts and feelings (most of these are in the body), and their interactions with each other.
Everybody has this faculty, since they can answer questions like how are you feeling, however it is underdeveloped therefore instead of seeing clearly inside, what most people see is a blur. Even the external eyes would see a blur instead of clear vision if they were not used regularly.

By repeated practise the inner eye can be trained to see and demarcate things clearly.


Role of thinking/wisdom/logic: Once the inner eye is well developed, it will show the inside worlds to the mind, the mind is engaged in a modeling process on its own, therefore really no explicit thinking is required.

Wisdom: Wisdom is the description of the world by "wise" people, when you can see clearly wisdom is useless.

Logic: Logic of the following flavor is not needed

A thing is defined as something which is less than the totality. This definition shows that totality is not a thing.


The implications of this argument are deep and revelatory. For example, because the totality itself cannot be a thing, it immediately means that it cannot have the form of a God or a cosmic consciousness or a physical universe or indeed anything at all. This is amazing knowledge.

What is needed is coherence which means that the mind checks that its model is consistent with the observations.

Dysfunctional habits: These are energy wasting chains of feelings-thoughts, they literally litter the mindscape. Whenever you feel anything less than clear almost surely it is one of these in action.

Suppose I am in the habit in chewing my nails, I now realize that this is bad and destructive to the body. How do I stop, by not chewing when the urge arises. This I call as breaking the loop.

[samadhi]

Shit! Despite my best efforts Samadhi hijacked the thread into a discussion of his version of enlightenment.

lol ... you seem to have won it back despite my best efforts! Those efforts, by the way, were only responses to what you and others have posted. Hijacking isn't my style.

[samadhi]

All I see you doing is equating love with attachment. Loving without attachment is not that rare. I'm sure you can look within your own experience and see that not everything you love has to do with attachment.

Are you referring to self-sacrificial acts of love, for example giving up ones life for the well being of a friend, family or a country? Surely you'd agree that this also works through identifying ourselves with this 'other' and then act out of belief or instinct that this one part of us with which we identify on some level can prosper by sacrificing another ('lesser') part of ourselves.

It doesn't have to be self-sacrificial but I wouldn't exclude it either. You can just love a picture or some music. Attachment comes in when you incorporate the idea of ownership into the love. Then it becomes problematic. The same with personal relationship. You can love someone without the idea that you must somehow be in control of them.

It's still selfish, only the self has expanded to include more than the usual body periphery. Remember, one doesn't include an objective other but the image one has of the other, like dying for a country or friend is dying for the ideal they represent, someones most loved part that needs to live on or prosper (or most hated part that must die, as the flip side).

I'm not sure how you're defining selfish. Love isn't selfish per se. It becomes selfish when you feel the need to circumscribe the actions of others based on your own needs. That however is attachment. Do you see the difference?

[David Quinn]

A good time to summarize.

observational Faculty aka third eye:

A module in the brain which can see very clearly thoughts and feelings (most of these are in the body), and their interactions with each other.
Everybody has this faculty, since they can answer questions like how are you feeling, however it is underdeveloped therefore instead of seeing clearly inside, what most people see is a blur. Even the external eyes would see a blur instead of clear vision if they were not used regularly.

By repeated practise the inner eye can be trained to see and demarcate things clearly.

In other words, learn to see things as they are, rather than as how one would like them to be.

I'm not sure why you would have to postulate the existence of a "module of the brain", though. What you're talking about is ordinary consciousness unencumbered by some forms of delusional thinking.

Role of thinking/wisdom/logic: Once the inner eye is well developed, it will show the inside worlds to the mind, the mind is engaged in a modeling process on its own, therefore really no explicit thinking is required.

Wisdom: Wisdom is the description of the world by "wise" people, when you can see clearly wisdom is useless.

Do you mean, when you can see clearly into the nature of Reality? If so, I would agree with you. But what you seem to be describing is a limited mindset, one that has no awareness of the nature of Reality, but still able to see motives and emotions fairly clearly. A feminine version of honesty, if you like. It can see things relatively clearly in the here and now, but has no consciousness of the bigger picture.

Logic: Logic of the following flavor is not needed

A thing is defined as something which is less than the totality. This definition shows that totality is not a thing.

The implications of this argument are deep and revelatory. For example, because the totality itself cannot be a thing, it immediately means that it cannot have the form of a God or a cosmic consciousness or a physical universe or indeed anything at all. This is amazing knowledge.

Lol! Banish that logic forthwith!


-

[maestro]

In other words, learn to see things as they are, rather than as how one would like them to be.

I'm not sure why you would have to postulate the existence of a "module of the brain", though. What you're talking about is ordinary consciousness unencumbered by some forms of delusional thinking.

Not "things", but the activity of brain : thoughts/feelings. It is not "ordinary consciouness unencumbered by delusional thought", it is a real clear internal observation. Even if delusional thinking is occurring it is observed clearly, there is no encumbrance by it.

It has to be an innate capability I think, otherwise it cannot be made out of thin air. Thus the brain would already have something like this which is just atrophied from nonuse. I think you do not have this faculty developed since you cannot recognize it immediately.

As one cannot "see" things as one likes them to be with the eyes same is the case with this faculty, there is accurate perception, thinking does not interfere with the seeing.

Do you mean, when you can see clearly into the nature of Reality? If so, I would agree with you. But what you seem to be describing is a limited mindset, one that has no awareness of the nature of Reality, but still able to see motives and emotions fairly clearly. A feminine version of honesty, if you like. It can see things relatively clearly in the here and now, but has no consciousness of the bigger picture.

You are indulging in metaphors, while I am pointing to the concrete fact of seeing. What do you mean by seeing into the nature of reality. This is not some metaphorical seeing, it is clear accurate observation, inside.

Lol! Banish that logic forthwith!

You mean you forsake your own brand of logic.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You can just love a picture or some music. Attachment comes in when you incorporate the idea of ownership into the love.

But how I defined attachment is not dependent on any idea of ownership. Sometimes that idea might occur, sometimes not. Sometimes it only occurs it was there after something was taken away ('missing'). But deeper down it's a personal identification, we bind ourselves, even temporary to something that we might not have regarded as ourselves before but now it's linked.

In that sense, all love is the same, never 'un-attached'. The only love that goes beyond ordinary attachment, in a way, is what is called the 'Greatest Love'. It's called that way not because of poetics or sentiment but because it just plainly describes the maximum achievable. It's a love that stretches out over everything: pure existence that's becoming object. But by then this object relation is bound to be shattered and true emptiness is the result. Dzing!

I'm not sure how you're defining selfish. Love isn't selfish per se. It becomes selfish when you feel the need to circumscribe the actions of others based on your own needs. That however is attachment. Do you see the difference?

It's selfish when it's related to the self. But what one sees as self varies quite a lot, it depends which particular thing one is identifying with. All forms of selfishness only vanish when we start identifying with nothing in particular. And when we touch or relate, as we couldn't exist without - it's a feather light touch. A hint of a brush, a ghost of a whisper before everything moves on. Delusion meaning here: believing in ghosts.

[brokenhead]

I'm not sure why you would have to postulate the existence of a "module of the brain", though. What you're talking about is ordinary consciousness unencumbered by some forms of delusional thinking.

maestro is referring to the Ajna Chakra, the two-petaled lotus, which is in the center of the forehead and in most people remains nascent. Some Indian yogins begin their development by opening and vivifying this chakra instaead of the one at the base of the spine, the Muladhara Chakra. With practice, you can actually feel this area tingling.

Again, the chakras are not theoretical, they are quite real.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: You can just love a picture or some music. Attachment comes in when you incorporate the idea of ownership into the love.

Diebert: But how I defined attachment is not dependent on any idea of ownership. Sometimes that idea might occur, sometimes not. Sometimes it only occurs it was there after something was taken away ('missing'). But deeper down it's a personal identification, we bind ourselves, even temporary to something that we might not have regarded as ourselves before but now it's linked.

In that sense, all love is the same, never 'un-attached'.

I see you doing what David likes to do, assume your conclusion. How do you know love is never unattached? Because you define it that way. You put yourself in a box and then puzzle about how to get out of it. I suggest not putting yourself in the box. Your experience is just that, experience. You don't need to define it in such a way that imprisons you. Just stop doing that. See what happens to your experience.

The only love that goes beyond ordinary attachment, in a way, is what is called the 'Greatest Love'. It's called that way not because of poetics or sentiment but because it just plainly describes the maximum achievable. It's a love that stretches out over everything: pure existence that's becoming object. But by then this object relation is bound to be shattered and true emptiness is the result. Dzing!

Why the need to put love outside of your own experience and then wonder how to get there? Love isn't some kind of magical experience meant only for the few. As long as you define it as otherworldly, well, I imagine it will appear as such to you. I guess you can do that. I'm not sure what the point is though.

sam: I'm not sure how you're defining selfish. Love isn't selfish per se. It becomes selfish when you feel the need to circumscribe the actions of others based on your own needs. That however is attachment. Do you see the difference?

Diebert: It's selfish when it's related to the self.

Right. So don't try to own it as self. If it's there, feel it. If it's not, don't try to drag it in. If it's going somewhere else, don't try to nail it down. You'll do just fine.

But what one sees as self varies quite a lot, it depends which particular thing one is identifying with. All forms of selfishness only vanish when we start identifying with nothing in particular. And when we touch or relate, as we couldn't exist without - it's a feather light touch. A hint of a brush, a ghost of a whisper before everything moves on. Delusion meaning here: believing in ghosts.

Well, okay. Just don't make it into a mystery you have to hunt for. It is as available to you as it is to anyone else.

[maestro]

maestro is referring to the Ajna Chakra, the two-petaled lotus, which is in the center of the forehead and in most people remains nascent. Some Indian yogins begin their development by opening and vivifying this chakra instaead of the one at the base of the spine, the Muladhara Chakra. With practice, you can actually feel this area tingling.

Again, the chakras are not theoretical, they are quite real.

Actually I am also open to the possibility that this is the Ajna Chakra, but It is not about a tingling sensation. It is about having a clear view of the inside. The descriptions of the Chakra as the eye of wisdom, and the eye (of Shiva) which burns away all delusions is also very intriguing. However I am not localizing its place, the only thing I know is that I can "see" very clearly inside.

[David Quinn]

In other words, learn to see things as they are, rather than as how one would like them to be.

I'm not sure why you would have to postulate the existence of a "module of the brain", though. What you're talking about is ordinary consciousness unencumbered by some forms of delusional thinking.

Not "things", but the activity of brain : thoughts/feelings. It is not "ordinary consciouness unencumbered by delusional thought", it is a real clear internal observation. Even if delusional thinking is occurring it is observed clearly, there is no encumbrance by it.

It has to be an innate capability I think, otherwise it cannot be made out of thin air. Thus the brain would already have something like this which is just atrophied from nonuse. I think you do not have this faculty developed since you cannot recognize it immediately.

As one cannot "see" things as one likes them to be with the eyes same is the case with this faculty, there is accurate perception, thinking does not interfere with the seeing.

Let's consider the case of a young child who hasn't yet built up enough ego and bad mental habits to distort his perception overly-much. Young children can often be disarming in their simple, but honest, observations.

In many ways, the young child already enjoys the attainment you propose. He sees things relatively clearly, yet we also know that his world-view is very undeveloped and small. He knows next to nothing about the adult world, has no consciousness of the bigger picture, has little or no awareness of causes and consequences, and so on. Clearly, that is a problem.

So your proposal, while admirable in its own way, is by no means the whole story. It is at best a small chunk of what can be achieved spiritually.

I believe what you're really referring to is a mental attainment traditionally known as "samadhi", which is a form of consciousness that is very clear and penetrative, where concentration is enhanced and everything is experienced in a crystal-clear fashion, often accompanied by feelings of bliss. Young children often experience it, experienced meditators can cultivate it, sometimes drugs can trigger it. This is a very useful form of consciousness to attain, but unless you use its clarity to penetrate the great secret of life, it won't get you very far in a spiritual sense.

Do you mean, when you can see clearly into the nature of Reality? If so, I would agree with you. But what you seem to be describing is a limited mindset, one that has no awareness of the nature of Reality, but still able to see motives and emotions fairly clearly. A feminine version of honesty, if you like. It can see things relatively clearly in the here and now, but has no consciousness of the bigger picture.

You are indulging in metaphors, while I am pointing to the concrete fact of seeing. What do you mean by seeing into the nature of reality. This is not some metaphorical seeing, it is clear accurate observation, inside.

I'm not talking about a metaphorical seeing either. I'm talking about literally seeing the nature of reality. It is what is spontaneously and naturally seen when the mind no longer projects what isn't really there.

-

[David Quinn]

Kevin Solway gives a good description of samadhi in Poison for the Heart:

The essential mind (samadhi based on bodhicitta)

The realization of God rests upon two things, a powerful concentration (samadhi), and intellectual insight into the nature of Reality (vipashyana). Attainment of deepest samadhi is accompanied by mental and physical ecstasy, and enormous power of mind. When this powerful mind is turned towards a reasoned analysis of reality, enlightenment is near.

Importantly, in deepest samadhi the mind is fearless, and at last able to have faith in what it reasons, which at other times it is loathe to do. However, be warned that if one uses samadhi without the relentless will to strive for absolute perfection, at any cost, then great harm results. The ego will bask in the heavens of samadhi and become empowered thereby. Stagnation and contentedness will follow, and the potential for learning lost, not only in yourself, but in others also.

Therefore, samadhi is harmful to those not of high scope. It is safe only for those who, firstly, are in the human realm, and secondly, have accumulated enough reason to desire truth above all else - even above happiness. The mind of such a precious one is a "mind of enlightenment", called "bodhicitta". It is the mind that aspires to perfection, at all costs, and without compromise.

Without bodhicitta, and without complete faith in the ability of reason to carry one beyond this world, there will be continued striving for ego security. Without bodhicitta, no matter how great one's mental attainments and knowledge of Reality, a portion of the ego, the core, will remain fixed. Great happiness, even Nirvana may ultimately be experienced, but the long-term consequences are horrible to contemplate, because each and every action of one who lacks bodhicitta is tainted with a solid and unchallenged faith in the very core of the ego.

One with bodhicitta may initially try to save himself, but reason soon gets the better of him, and will push him relentlessly onwards, into the arms of the Infinite.

The attainment of samadhi

The place of samadhi

The difference between thinking with and without samadhi is like the difference between the footprints of an elephant and that of a mouse. Only with samadhi is there the penetration, the open-mindedness and the clarity of memory necessary for great mental attainment.

The attainment of samadhi comes in degrees. Anyone who has experienced "altered states of consciousness" has experienced some degree of samadhi. Samadhi can be attained by concentrating on any object at all, provided you have enough desire or need of samadhi. If you are already happy and content with your life there is little hope you will generate the deep longing necessary to achieve samadhi.

Religious people of many faiths wrongly interpret the experience of samadhi in prayer or meditation as "God presence", or "religious experience", when it is merely the bliss of a still mind. Their lack of wisdom guarantees their spiritual bankruptcy. Without wisdom, samadhi is useless. Faith alone can still a racing mind, but only faith in Reality will Enlighten it.

So, samadhi is essential, yet the object of samadhi can so easily be a pitfall. Then what is a safe object for samadhi? The wise direct their minds towards Truth itself. The beginner experiments with his mind in preparation for greater things. The fool merely directs his mind away from his problems.

-

[maestro]

In many ways, the young child already enjoys the attainment you propose. He sees things relatively clearly, yet we also know that his world-view is very undeveloped and small. He knows next to nothing about the adult world, has no consciousness of the bigger picture, has little or no awareness of causes and consequences, and so on. Clearly, that is a problem.

No I do not remember myself having this faculty as a child. This is really different. I have experienced the bliss of a still mind too many times, this is not that either.

I believe what you're really referring to is a mental attainment traditionally known as "samadhi", which is a form of consciousness that is very clear and penetrative, where concentration is enhanced and everything is experienced in a crystal-clear fashion, often accompanied by feelings of bliss. Young children often experience it, experienced meditators can cultivate it, sometimes drugs can trigger it. This is a very useful form of consciousness to attain, but unless you use its clarity to penetrate the great secret of life, it won't get you very far in a spiritual sense.

No this is not necessarily accompanied by bliss, for example today my mind was in a panicked state and the observation was still very clear. It does not need a still mind at all.


what you describe as Samadhi is when the mind is Quisecent so that there is not much to be seen anyhow, and then observation is easy even with the atrophied eye. Here the focus is sharp irrespective of conditions.

[David Quinn]

In many ways, the young child already enjoys the attainment you propose. He sees things relatively clearly, yet we also know that his world-view is very undeveloped and small. He knows next to nothing about the adult world, has no consciousness of the bigger picture, has little or no awareness of causes and consequences, and so on. Clearly, that is a problem.

No I do not remember myself having this faculty as a child.

You probably did have it. Most people can't remember much before they were 5.

No this is not necessarily accompanied by bliss, for example today my mind was in a panicked state and the observation was still very clear. It does not need a still mind at all.

Oh well, it looks like you are describing something less than samadhi - namely, a kind of habitual looking inwards at your mental states. A redirecting of attention. I'm not sure why you see it as significant, as it is a standard procedure for anyone who seriously investigates life.

what you describe as Samadhi is when the mind is Quisecent so that there is not much to be seen anyhow, and then observation is easy even with the atrophied eye.

No, that's not samadhi. Samadhi is quiescent in the sense that anxiety doesn't normally occur and mental disturbances are few, but it is still very active in an exploratory sense. It depends on how you utilize it.

-

[maestro]

Oh well, it looks like you are describing something less than samadhi - namely, a kind of habitual looking inwards at your mental states. A redirecting of attention. I'm not sure why you see it as significant, as it is a standard procedure for anyone who seriously investigates life.

I can see you are trying too hard to fit this in your existing framework. Why not you at least entertain the possibility that it is something else altogether? I assure you it is not what you think it is. If you practice observation diligently you may also suddenly develop this one day. Then you will realize that your logic and philosophy are like the stick of a blind man with which he probes things, whereas if you have eyesight you can throw it all away.

[maestro]

I feel what I am posting seems very pompous, but there is no better way to put it.

I rather feel very insignificant, and see that the whole spiritual path was a big ego trip and was really greed after all. The greed of being better than the others of achieving more happiness, more knowledge, wisdom, secrets of the infinite. I can now clearly see how ridiculous that was.

However the path was useful as it did develop the process and finished the suffering. Now it is plain reality for me, no enlightenment no wisdom no ultimate knowledge no infinity: but clear vision of whatever arises. An ordinary man with ordinary circumstance.

[divine focus]

Yes. This is acceptance.

[David Quinn]

I feel what I am posting seems very pompous, but there is no better way to put it.

I rather feel very insignificant, and see that the whole spiritual path was a big ego trip and was really greed after all. The greed of being better than the others of achieving more happiness, more knowledge, wisdom, secrets of the infinite. I can now clearly see how ridiculous that was.

However the path was useful as it did develop the process and finished the suffering. Now it is plain reality for me, no enlightenment no wisdom no ultimate knowledge no infinity: but clear vision of whatever arises. An ordinary man with ordinary circumstance.

Fair enough. May you be happy in being an observer!

-

[maestro]

Fair enough. May you be happy in being an observer!

I am nowhere to be found, it is now all decentralized, the mind planning and deciding. The eyes observing, the body doing what it does etc.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Fair enough. May you be happy in being an observer!

I am nowhere to be found, it is now all decentralized, the mind planning and deciding. The eyes observing, the body doing what it does etc.

The point being made here, at least as it appears to me, is that merely a position of right view or right understanding is in many ways only the beginning, not merely an ending. And I'm not talking about an intellectual viewpoint but about the deep 'unsettling' Maestro related to in this thread. It's not any final liberation but actually is known at times to act like a substitute, a lull.

Statements that the "path was useful" and one "finished the suffering" might be perceptions that have to be regarded with a bit more caution and distrust. If one really has obtained 'right view' many deeper laying truths, once out of view completely, will become apparent rather quickly and before you know it one finds oneself back at the start again, the same yet different.

[maestro]

Diebert:
Very Hard to understand what you are saying, would you like to provide something in simpler language.

For everyone: I found an interesting talk about the experience of oneness triggered by a stroke in a brain scientist here

http://blog.ted.com/2008/03/jill_bolte_tayl.php#more

Interesting ideas about the left and right hemisphere. Interestingly the left one seems the masculine, which is promoted here while the right one is the feminine, which she posits one involved in mystical experiences of oneness. I would rather balance both of them then favor one over the other.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How do you know love is never unattached? Because you define it that way. You put yourself in a box and then puzzle about how to get out of it. I suggest not putting yourself in the box. Your experience is just that, experience. You don't need to define it in such a way that imprisons you.

Each experience is a form of definition, at least the moment appearances are gonna mean something to you and especially the moment you're gonna express yourself towards others. So to introduce a "no need to define it" sounds to me like an attempt to subvert the meaning I'm trying to establish through the defining. Mind you, a definition can always be improved upon but what matters is if it's consistent and relevant to the discussion - if participants can relate to it or not, that's all.

Just stop doing that. See what happens to your experience.

And also assigning meaning remains what it is: assigning meaning. Why trying to undo it? What's the problem?

Why the need to put love outside of your own experience and then wonder how to get there? Love isn't some kind of magical experience meant only for the few. As long as you define it as otherworldly, well, I imagine it will appear as such to you. I guess you can do that. I'm not sure what the point is though.

When it comes to it, everyone is loving as part of experience. Personally I'd define love as the very thing that causes our experience in the first place ("desire to become aware of other"). Or as Quinn wrote in his book about projecting ultimate reality onto particular appearances. The question becomes then what you're loving and where it leads to. It's no rocket science.

So don't try to own it as self. If it's there, feel it. If it's not, don't try to drag it in. If it's going somewhere else, don't try to nail it down. You'll do just fine.

It doesn't make it less selfish by letting it go 'spreading the love'. Disowning what goes on is not the same as non-attachment. In psychological terms it would just a form of dissociation and still far from liberation as I see it.

Just don't make it into a mystery you have to hunt for. It is as available to you as it is to anyone else.

The universal availability doesn't make it more obvious, perhaps less so for people desiring a more rigid formula or outward label, so it could just as well be called a mystery.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert:
Very Hard to understand what you are saying, would you like to provide something in simpler language.

Shortest version: I think you've still a long way to go without me questioning the giant strides you already made. That's just my impression though. And I could say the same thing about myself.

Longer version: the perspective you now find yourself in ("non-perspective" or decentralized as it might appear) is only a part of 'right view' to use a Buddhist term. And that view is only a small part of many more aspects of wisdom forming. You quickly dismissed a lot of stuff by saying "no wisdom". You merely dismissed how you understood it all so far. But after time, after you get out of this lull you might discover there are deeper aspects to it after all. That's why I wrote "back at the start again". It's meant as encouragement and warning of a fellow traveler and I hope you take it that way.