Search the Community

This is why I make a point to state that the system of racism is mostly an invisible hand issue, that stems from the workings of the system as opposed to direct malicious intent. So, unconsciousness itself is the primary enemy, not individuals. But I do believe in being as frank and direct as possible for the sake of understanding and optimization of nuance in that understanding. And I don't like to sugar coat anything, as it is not necessary and tends to coddle and muddy the waters. The social system is very impersonal anyway, so just being accurate won't make anyone feel implicated or demonized... unless they were going to project that anyway no matter what anyone has to say on the matter that they disagree with. The way I see it is that if I am as perceptive, thorough, and honest as possible then the people who are the least emotionally attached to their current paradigm will be able to have an "aha!" moment and be able to have more clarity around this situation. People who are very emotionally attached to their perspective are unlikely to change no matter what, unless they share the value of becoming more conscious. So, the way I see it is that I'm very unlikely to make those that are triggered emotionally by this topic budge at all. But there are a ton of people who aren't triggered emotionally who will be able to recognize these patterns if I lay them out accurately and thoroughly, as their emotional attachments won't stand in the way of their perception.

@Mikael89 How can the body be an ego? It does not feel physical pain - when somebody hits you, then there is a sensation of pain which even the word 'pain' does not accurately describe as it is merely a part of the infinite flux of sensations = reality. So 'pain' is just a label you constructed for a specific sensation and 'body' is another label referring to a set of other sensations. In reality there is simply an impersonal occurrence of what you describe as 'pain'.

Contemplate on doing/actions. Can be a good way to see there is no such thing in direct experience, merely feedback from reality (an endless flux of impersonal occurrences). So what you are left with is sensations/perceptions/thoughts. Looking at those, 'you' do not really DO anything to think or to perceive - it all comes naturally even if you are resisting it. Thus, where is the doer/thinker? Just adding this exercise which might be useful before somebody gets offended that I am refuting his point

I wrote this quite a while back on one of the Dharma Overground forums in response to one of the thoughtful contributors to the thread and someone recently quoted my post and left a nice comment last month. Formal meditation is a temporary expedient. Initially, its purpose is to create a habit of overarching, then subtle observation of mind at all times. There is a reason for this, but it is provisional, and I don't do that. Formal meditation is not "good", per se. Unless it is serving the purpose of consciously cultivated temporary expediency, its relevance to the self which thinks good or bad, right or wrong and before or after in terms of self and other is a significant error in which effective authentic self-refinement is obstructed. Since the initial "high" produced by the kind of "artificial meditation" practiced by some beginners habituated to identification by their "achievements" in contemplative arts wears off anyway and is essentially ineffective, for the most part, in dealing face to face with ordinary situations to any great extent, it is best to do whatever is necessary to hit the ground running, so to speak, in terms of turning the light around in order to effect seeing reality, as is, cold turkey— and wean oneself of self-reifying identity issues with practice done in private, as soon as reasonably possible. I'm not saying one shouldn't pursue "just sitting" in private meditation venues— the point is that formal meditation is a TEMPORARY expedient. The point of effective self-refinement is to see reality, as is, without any filters perpetuated by the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die by activating the inherent potential of nonpsychological awareness. Seeing the essence of complete reality is seeing reality with the Dharma eye of nonpsychological awareness— it's your own mind right now. What is reality? Unity of absolute and relative is the working definition of reality. Nondual nature is your nature. Consequently, Nirvana and Karmic evolution are not only equal, they are identical. This is the basis of the saying "sameness within difference", though there are several aspects in terms of dealing with the conceptual device relative to the various provisional teachings within buddhism. Arriving at nonduality in terms of everyday ordinary affairs is essential to buddhist practice. Actually, it is the working definition of enlightening being. Enlightening being is the function of awareness. Awareness is your nature. Awareness, your own mind right now, is not created. Seeing reality is activating the mind without dwelling on anything. The only reason this is possible is because your own mind right now is unborn. Mind is one, undifferentiated, selfless, void of identity. It's you. People aren't just already enlightened— they're enlightened mind incarnate. I need to remind people that it's not the person …but it's not somewhere or something else either. Real 24/7 meditation practice is seeing through phenomena without denying their characteristics. Taoist alchemy calls this refining the medicines. Buddhism calls this using the sickness to cure the disease. It's not about meditation, after all. You can take all the provisional entry-level teachings and use them as applications of the real in the midst of the false in broad daylight unbeknownst to anyone. This is having the gumption to move beyond the zero-point of the intent of all provisional teachings and thereby gain entry into the inconceivable. It's about using the world to refine the self; using conditions to arrive at essential nature. This cannot be accomplished by quiet sitting alone. That's because, reality is already Mind— your mind, right now. Perhaps you are not ready to hear this. Reality is relative to your mind in terms of the degree of one's clarified enlightening potential. As long as your mind is habituated to the view of its separate nature, you will not see essence in everyday affairs. After a long process of self-refinement carried out correctly and effectively in everyday ordiary situations, the self-reifying mental habits that perpetuate the illusion of the separate self-identity as ultimately existent will die off, bit by bit, and that much of your primordial potential will be activted as the selfless function of awareness. Actually using this is selfless adaption; activating the subtle operation of spiritual transformations in the midst of worldly situations. Nonduality realized all the time is seeing the physical, psychological, psychic, emotional, causal matrix of karmic evolution (Creation) as void of self— because that's what it is (no different than you, that is, void of self). Going along with this, just as it is, knowing it as utter illusion— how could you possibly bring yourself to act on behalf of situations arising from this insane chaos, good, bad or indifferent? Acceptance of conditions is "going along— not denying characteristics". Not acting on conditions is "seeing through phenomena". The sense of nonattachment to outcomes aids in adapting to the inevitable where unavoidable— the ups and downs look just like reality: therefore "perfection is easy for those with no preferences." Soon enough, you may come to the working strategy that this entire malestrom of karmic momentum is just your perception of it. Otherwise, it just doesn't make ANY sense …to leave it up to the world, and fortunately, you don't have to. YOU take total responsibility for your sensory perception and mental postures. It doesn't require doing— just meeting and accepting conditions for what they are— illusion. If you can come to the temporary working realization that phenomena is what reality looks like without having the slightest shred of belief it its ultimate nature, then it might be possible to endeavor to work at adapting to conditions as they present themselves out of a sense of inevitability without clinging to good or bad outcomes. It's not a thing. There is no moral implication in terms of selflessness— it's impersonal. That's mind. This is actually an entry to the buddha's teaching of Suchness and thus carrying out the activation of enlightening potential and partaking of the Great Vehicle of Tathagatas. This is penetrating reality, in fact. Right in front of your nose is this nondual reality 24/7. As such, it is so whether you are aware of it or not. In terms of the point of meditation in the first place, and the fact of reality, it is Mind alone. The lesser vehicle of personal liberation is a temporary expedient as well …why is this? It's another lie to trick you into the path, that's all. That Suchness is reality is nominally due to the fact that it is neither absolute nor conditional. Both Nirvana and Creation are the same illusion. One is your mind before creation and the other is after. Clinging to one or the other is delusion. Neither absolute stillness nor karmic momentum is the essence of reality unified, present and naturally so, without ever entering creation, which is your nature already. Even those who experience sudden enlightenment must learn to realize this truth by APPLYING it in the midst of situations seamlessly according to its potential. You can begin to see this if you can dismiss your dependent relationships on circumstantial interpretations. Reality doesn't look any different than delusion when your relationships to circumstances are not dependent on outcomes, good or bad. Perpetual unity with reality is just subtly activated nonpsychological awareness of the essential underlying nature of impersonal circumstantial process as your own potential void of attributabilty in terms of an absolute personal identity. When you act based on karmic dependence, you change inherent selfless enlightening potential into karmic debt. Ouch! ed note: add to the 2nd line, 3rd paragraph; add "of" in first line of 15th paragraph

Nothing of this intensity in my direct experience, but something that might be tangential - I would often try to let go of control and be like 'do whatever you want' to the body. In such cases my hands would start doing random movements and everything would seem to be happening of itself. I recently had the realization that there is no such thing as 'action', but simply perceptions and sensations of impersonal occurrences (reality itself). Thus, any control is just an illusion - the ego is trying to predict what is going to happen as it has no idea/control. So it might be that this occurrences were there to show 'you' something similar to this. Using the guy sitting next to the road analogy - he can only guess which way the cars are headed, but has no real control over it. However, he believes that he is orchestrating the entire event. This is in a way the ego. Interesting post.

@Jack River I would assume so - the lack of identification with the self/thought breaks its own cycle of feeding itself with more thoughts. Then there is no self which also means no movement of reaction/action. What is left is just impersonal occurrences, not thought-driven actions.

@Jack River More like there is identification with that reaction/action? Who is the one that can act in regards to that incomplete sense of thought? Lack of identification with reaction/thought allows everything to become impersonal and then reality/actions start becoming more coherent/aligned with Truth.

This totally makes sense! I remember Stephen Wolinsky (Maharaj's direct student) saying in a video that Maharaj told Mulapatan(the usual translator in satsangs) that he didn't actually like the book ''I AM THAT'' as it was published. Why? Because all his answers in that book were exclusively tailored and provided to that exact questioner at his/her place at their present spiritual understanding then. But almost all readers misunderstood and took all the answers as the unchanging biblical quotes. That's why all this confusion and intellectual nit picking started . The same I AM is defined in like 100 fashions in 100 different answers. We must not forget that these answers were for that specific questioner only. They are not meant to be taken as blind faith. 1) When a spiritual newbie came to him whose mind is all the place, Maharaj would tell him to FOCUS on the thought/feeling I AM. Instead of running after thousands of objects outside, the devotee would then actively think about one object I AM and turn inwards. This is the very definition of Concentration meditation. Here you've deliberately objectified the I AM and focusing on it to still the money mind. 2) When a sufficiently matured devotee would ask him a question, he would point to the formless I AM as the pure witness that can't be objectified. He would say, stay as the I AM and let go of all things. 3) In the final stages, he would give pointers to show that this very I AM really is not personal. That personhood was an illusion from the first place! Right there, that same knowing-being is discovered as the impersonal God's Being. @Blissout Hope you see what I'm trying to convey

Let's not see it from a narrow perspective my friend. Let's sort this out experientially! If I AM is an object you can 'focus' on, tell me from your own experience what are objective qualities of this I AM? Is it a color, a sound, a subtle sensation? Does it have a specific pinpoint location? Tell me. If you can't find any of these qualities, then why are you declaring I AM as another object? Notice that whatever you point to as I AM is not the I AM but I AM THIS. If I AM was purely an object like lets say the sensations in the head, then Maharaj would advice to firmly focus on the sensations in the head. That would be a concentration meditation. But he repeatedly said that, Subtract the THIS and THAT and only stay as the I AM. From my experience, I AM is a pure witnessing state. This I AM cannot be objectified in any way. When Maharaj says that the I AM needs to be transcended or ''In the Absolute state I don't even know that I AM'', he means that by staying as that pure subject I AM in an unbroken fashion, at one point you realize in a flash that this very 'knowiness' or I AM is not something you personally own. Right at that moment, You discover the I AM as the impersonal Universal Consciousness, the Only Consciousness there ever was and ever will be. That is the absolute state where the last vestiges of personhood is given up. That's why I AM or pure witnessing is the direct doorway to Absolute. By staying with the I AM unbrokenly, you discover it's Truth. I am elaborating all this over and over again because I find from my personal experience that creating more and more layers in the Subject or I AM just makes the witnessing process more complex and inefficient. The mind runs into intellectual land to make sense of things by objectifying the subject, witness behind witness behind witness....I hope you get my point. Why not just take only one pure subject, the formless I AM and just watch...carefully eliminating everything the I AM is not...until the I AM reveals itself as the Absolute?

Whew~ and that, folks, was a situation — too bad for mr "prior to that". The situation, being bound by karmic evolution, is a mass of fire with nothing for one's nonpsychological awareness to discriminate outside the inherent potential of the aware energy constituting the formal. This is a way to describe the operation of turning the light around. The basis of situations is itself the means to develop one's ability to transcend situations; one by one. It's kinda like feeling lucky— lucky to be alive, in that it just turns out that way, again. There is just no knowing beforehand. So "full-blown clairvoyance" is like a fascination with clouds. It is simply more ephemeral phenomena. Big whoop (if one's intent is being through with the world). The world is all there is. For one to entertain such notions of separateness, hell is the world such a one is already living in. What other world could there be? Since there is nothing to know anyway, one simply has to find the gumption to arrive at the heart of immediacy by a constant mindfulness of perpetual clarification of personal and impersonal views. Arising is accompanied by observation, and keeping a constant unbroken subtle continuity of attention to the coming and going of potential in terms of the situation, is turning the light around and following it back to its source to rest in the highest good. The only difference between watching over the aperture of the Mysterious Female and not watching is …watching. Obviously, seeing is the critical aspect of enlightening response. So subtle observation of the incipience of movement (or not) of mind is paramount in developing the capacity for transcending the movement of time(s). The mechanism is in the eyes. Again, it is simply a matter of seeing. Seeing is itself reality; the contents of perception is literally immaterial. Coming and going isn't in things: it's Mind. Yet Mind is that which has no coming and going. Sensing potential is the nature of seeing brought to bear in terms of the effective clarification of Mind, which is said to be the culmination of stillness, which has no such stillness. This is said in the same sense as any illuminate who says that true emptiness isn't empty. Seeing's correlate is potential. Being the same, these are the substance and function of taoist Complete Reality and buddhist Suchness, which is neither created nor uncreated; temporal nor absolute. It is your own mind right now. In terms of the unattributable, these are its knowledge; formlessly, selflessly without beginning or remainder. This is the heart of subtle operation. It takes situations to illustrate the course of adaption which is simply a matter of seeing knowledge. In seeing knowledge, there is nothing else to do except take the bumps and spills of sensory and psychological awareness by virtue of having a body. Jesus wasn't any different (ouch!!). Yet such a one as he ascended into heaven in broad daylight— that's a taoist term that long ago passed into the folk vernacular of ancient China. Do you suppose so many people of yore have ascended into heaven in broad daylight? Who would suppose to doubt it? There is a term used in alchemy: the body outside the body. First of all, the body outside the body is a function, not a thing. Yet there is a body outside the body for those who, having seen their nature, are availed of by further advanced self-refinement. Secondly, it is more of one not having a body at all than it is of having another body outside of one's material body (not that the double isn't able to be conjured). It is. There have been all kinds of occult cultivation throughout the ages conjuring up this body outside the body. The highest teachings are pure simplicity itself. Whether the situation is in terms of the microcosmic, macrocosmic, or cosmic, there is no thing. Arrive at this no thing in all situations, times, places, events and people, and the homeland of nothing whatsoever is yours forever. Do you suppose there would be so much to do there? What is there to do here? ed note: add "is turning the light around and following it back to its source to rest in the highest good" to 5th paragraph; add colon in 10th paragraph; fix last quote

At least you know how to argue❤︎ As for "getting it", not so much. Selflessness is being absorbed into the situation of other— even as other. Selflessness is not being a Mother Teresa, and it's not a matter of getting into someone else's shoes, rather, it's being no one other than what is dictated by the situation according to the time. It's being selfless. It's not "the person", as oppose to "a person" and identifying as such. Selflessness is appropriating the nature of awareness, of reality, as one's actual impersonal identity in order to adapt effectively, transcendentally, in the course of actual affairs without anyone knowing, or caring— including oneself. One's selflessness is totally natural— supremely natural. This is resting in the highest good, beyond convention. No buddha can approach one here.

Ok~ The statement is relative to people who spontaneously recognize real knowledge and dismiss it out of hand due to the fact that they are not able to deal with anything beyond an habitual reliance on self-referencing psychologically patterned habit energy. Conventional self-reifying patterns of conscious awareness would be relative to a concept of "personal agency" I suppose. But seeing reality is not relative to the person. This means that spontaneous recognition of real knowledge without being able to act on that knowledge is akin to being ignorant of real knowledge in spite of seeing it~ that's all. The point is that real knowledge is accessible to all people all the time— not just for those who have already experienced evidences of efficacy demonstrating an awakening spiritual potential. It's just that ordinary people can't recognize it, and when they do, all they can do is go, "So what." That is, when they spontaneously "get it", they don't know how to apply it in everyday ordinary situations. I think you "get it", non? haha! To clarify: there is nothing "personal" nor is there anything relative to the person involved, (outside of inherent impersonal awareness) in terms of seeing— that is the whole point of enlightening activity. It's selfless, due to the nature of reality and hence, our enlightened nature. In taoist terms, it is none other than the "true human with no status" floating around in the center of the compass of the immaterial body of awareness which has no location. That means that real knowledge doesn't "come from somewhere" (else), nor does it have a pointed perspective relative to anything other than the situation itself. The focal point of real knowledge is a pointless 360˚ horizon keyed to the situation's potential of inevitability. Enlightening activity is ultimately just "finding out what happened", from the perspective of the situation itself. It's just your enlightened mind void of self-reifying psychological patterns right now, therefore recognizing real knowledge is completely natural, yet somehow foreign to the psychological apparatus of the conditioned personalities of those who are not sufficiently adapted to effective methods of authentic self-refinement.

Hi Jack~ I call "intelligence" the conditionally relative aspect of conscious knowledge overlying the nonpsychological nature of real knowledge. But if you mean to employ the word "intelligence" as a reference to one's [spontaneously effective] use of immediate nondiscursive knowledge, then I would make a slight modification to the wording: Seeing is objectively sensing what is, as is, in terms of selfless nonpsychological awareness, no different than your own mind right now— yet in terms of spiritual subtle adaption, there is no energy employed as an act of affirmation or denial as knowledge is immediate. It seems I am splitting hairs, but the reason I am making the distinction is that acceptance/denial is relative to created energy, whereas enlightening activity as defined by "turning the light around" is already keyed to potential, so my modification to the quote is: People must be careful to keep in mind that such "intelligence" is not found beyond one's own mind right now. Real knowledge arises spontaneously as a matter of course (not just for those awakened to their selfless nature) and those who practice subtle observation of mind are eventually able to recognize its appearance in the midst of habitual thought-streams. This is why 24/7 subtle observation of mind is such a critical aspect of authentic self-refinement. There are other reasons as well that I won't go into at this time. The critical aspect of spiritual adaption to situations is borne by the inherent pattern of the situation itself, so I am being hyper-sensitive to the use of the word "accept" in the context of your statement because virtuous nonresistance would seem to imply just what you wrote, yet I am making the distinction between "accept" (so as not to imply that it means "affirm"), as opposed to "deny", for the benefit of others who may read this and mistakenly assume that "accept" is relative to the person— which it isn't. Since seeing is relative to selfless nonpsychological awareness, there is no superfluous affirmation or denial to speak of in the context of enlightening perception. Inevitability as a watchword for enlightening activity means that the karmic nature of all created things (including situations) are destined, in that every created cycle is embedded in its own matrix of potential or "situational DNA". Enlightening activity is just the practical knowledge of karmic patterning and furthermore watching for its critical junctures. All situations are cyclical. This is what make their study (in terms of taoism) a science. The Art of War states that "victory depends on the enemy" in that conditions conducive to apropriate action in response to developments cannot be manufactured beforehand. One must await their inexorable inevitable development. One must know what is being awaited. One must know the ground of life and death and be situated advantageously unbeknownst to anyone. The word "enemy" signifies the nature of the situation itself in that one's impersonal adaption depends on its (the situation's) parameters exclusively. This is why victory depends on the enemy. The Art of War is an ancient classic long included the taoist spiritual canon. This is why I say that one must, in fact, be ultimately vulnerable in order to carry out the subtle operation of the Great Vehicle as a Tathagata in terms of Complete Reality neither ordinary nor holy. The critical junctures of Change that I speak of are the ground of life and death. The alchemical term is the Aperture of the Mysterious Female: Chapter 16 of the Tao te Ching Return is the critical juncture(s) of all situations, material and immaterial. As in all things, the celestial pattern is expressed as the function of its process. Ego is a valid function, therein lies its value to the organism. It is not a thing. It is empty, utterly attributable to conditions. All created cycles have these critical junctures: the times when the gate and door defining the aperture of the Mysterious Female occur. Chapter 6 Therefore, it is to be understood that it is, in fact, used. It is also to be understood that its function is the unchanging unified fabric of inconceivability (referred to as gossamer silk in some volumes of the TTC) which is subtly operated in the context of ordinary situations according to the time by those with the power to comprehend its function in order to influence events. These two chapters from the Tao Te Ching do not just refer to mystical experience, as the celestial pattern permeates reality. Adepts arrive at partnership with creation, and are therefore not subject to its karmic cycles. There is no escape, yet liberation in the buddhist sense means that in the midst of delusional process, one does not go along with creation in that conformity with essence is preternaturally outside the primal organization of created incremental time and space. As I have mentioned many time before, it's an utter inconceivability, which is our nature in terms of human being. There is a chapter in the Kuei ku-Tzu called Opening and Closing. Let me clarify a few terms: heaven refers to the inner mind; earth refers to nature, the essential ground of reality; society, man, the sage, refers to a function of human potential. Assessing objectively and adapting impersonally is sage activity, whether it is accomplished by generals, buddhas, or enlightening beings. In every case, it is accomplished by those whose hearts have the power to take hearts. "Sages are not humane; they see all people as straw dogs." The Mysterious Female is not a place; it has no location. It arises naturally in the course of created karmic cycles. It is indicative of the celestial design. Those who see the opening and closing of the gate and door of the Mysterious Female are able to transcend Change while abiding in the midst of its changes. This is enlightening activity. Grain by grain, one gathers the elixir. Occasionally, a person will spontaneously comprehend an aspect of the phenomena of the secret of the celestial mechanism and conclude, "so what". This is what is referred to as knowing without the ability to act on knowledge. If one knows but is unable to act on that knowledge, it is the same as not knowing. It is simply not having the requisite personal power to act on knowledge. Authentic self-refinement is the means to gather and amass the potential (personal power) to see reality and act on knowledge by non-doing. Ordinary ignorant people whose personal power is inadequate to use energy aren't thus. Using it is a matter of amassing the energy to partake of energy. This energy is the nature of the Way and its Power. The power of the Way is another name for Virtue. Virtue is the inherent quality of enlightening being. Awakening to enlightening qualities is the result of self-refinement. What is refined? The human mentality. ed note: parenthesize "enemy" in 8th paragraph

It is a pedantic formality to refer to "dependent origination" which is ordinary consciousness in the throes of appearing to justify Cause. This is pure intellectualism on the part of a recreational philosopher. What would be the point in pinching pebbles of which anyone can discern the source? Who can refer to one's inherent causeless nonoriginated essence, hmmmm? Furthermore, what might be your part in its application, sir? You are stuck in borrowed words… but carry on as you will, dear. Moving right along for the benefit of those with the will to enlightenment. But though it is possible for those having penetrated a practical experiential basis in the real can see how it is possible to apply Dogen's elevated living words on multiple levels of understanding, there is only one mind which all levels of experience have in reference to recognition of one's being that is nonoriginated. Therefore, in terms of this mind, and in terms of effective and immediate wordless insight by those whose practical work of self-refinement is real, there are no levels. What is the mind of the nonoriginated self the Buddha says to refer everything to? It is the mind that does not think. One's own awareness not construed by the thinking mentality is immediate wordless insight. Just this mind is the Unborn. When wordless insight is present, don't think about it— in developing a subtle continuity of unminding concentration in the midst of everyday ordinary situations by open-minded wordless stable insight one enters into the only kind of practice worthy of the name. The Unborn is truly all there is. When you get this, just don't let it turn into other states. After a long, long time of stability in resting in the Unborn, eventually there is awakening to reality as is which finally obliterates one's uncertainty and doubt. This mind is the same in all sentient beings be they buddhas or ordinary deluded people. But "only those who cultivate themselves to conform to essence can direct the course of nature and not be caused to wax and wane by nature". It is all well and good that all sentient beings have this and are this enlightenment already, but even for those who have seen essence, their original face, if they cannot avail themselves of this knowledge, it is the same as if they had no knowledge. Bankei never wore out his unborn mind. He just told ordinary folk the same thing over and over without ever changing his story until the day he died that one simply must apply one's own everyday ordinary unborn mind by not turning it into anything else by compulsions following thoughts based on selfish perspectives relative to the personality that thinks. The galloping mind is the scourge of human being. Just don't let the unborn awareness perpetually present without beginning turn into other states by thinking unawares. It is thinking unawares that carries one away from the perpetually pristine unborn mind. Don't stop this thinking mind— just don't follow it unawares. When you let the human mentality go on without you, the unborn is already just your true self activated in terms of the capacity of impersonal objective observation. That's your mind. As for those who cultivate themselves to conform to essence— it is just resting in the Unborn as all things act in concert. This is the place where one sees Return. Return is just the celestial arising from within the mundane. Those who see the spontaneous arising of the celestial see the source of Change, and therefore do not go along with change. It is not a matter of mundane or elevated aspects differentiating people. Those who can rest in the Unborn for an instant are buddhas for an instant. Those who rest in the Unborn for a lifetime are buddhas for a lifetime. It's only just now. This mind is the same in all sentient beings be they buddhas or ordinary deluded people. But "only those who cultivate themselves to conform to essence can direct the course of nature and not be caused to wax and wane by nature". This may help those who truly wonder why understanding reality matters.

Any time, Jack~ no hurries …not like the one who said I use too many words-- heehee!!❤︎ Arkandeus wrote: Oh it's exquisitely ordinary, mon ami~ it's no different than your own mind right now, just without any (or muuuch less) psychological momentum influencing your perception within the midst of ordinary situations. Enlightenment feels just like you, because it is you (you are not it). Yes, because mind is already so (selfless), your affinity with impersonal functionalities is attractive (everything is just so), therefore Suchness as is, is just so. The tendency to project psychological patterns reflecting personality bias is a long process of gradual fading away called self-refinement. It's the trajectory of selfless intent or will, locked on to the inevitable "dissolution" of one's psychological momentum (that which is the cohesive gravitational nexus of the personality). The word "dissolusion" is a tip of the hat to Emanyalpsid's definition of enlightenment as "dissolve". As far as "your" enlightenment supposedly feeling like a delusion~ I can't say… just keep watching over it without a word.

Hi Jack~ great reply …merciiii Enlightening capacity has no applicable relation to the personality per se, because enlightenment is unattributable, and the personality is; the phenomenon of an habitually self-reifying "you" is a temporary functionary properly in the service of one's nonoriginated enlightening potential. So yes, it's true, the relative "you" cannot be identified in terms of enlightening experience either in terms of the absolute (sudden) or in otherwise temporal (incremental) contexts~ which, in either case, is the working definition of liberation, by the way. To the degree one has effectively carried out an unbending intent toward relentless self-refinement of the psychological basis of personally acquired i.e., karmic habit-energy, one accrues the benefit of a gradual lack of burdensome identifications relative to a personal self— which is the enabling factor in reversing the role of the personality from one of despot over the true self to one of spontaneously sensitive response in the service of the true self. The capacity for sensitivity and effectiveness on the part of the "personality" is a seamless accord with true reality. It is not that there is a separate self conscious of being in service to a higher order of being. Mind is one. There are no two minds. The true self is no such self to possess anything. The true self is not a point of self-conscious discernemt. There is no self outside of awareness itself. True self-awareness is impersonal selfless living potential perpetually on the verge of going into action, yet there is no lurking compulsion. Enlightening intent is the just the nonoriginated awake quality as is in perpetuity. Therefore, even in terms of an absolute nature, "there is no thing". That this truth's inconceivability is transcendentally operative in the midst of delusional existence is evidence of the fact that reality and delusion are not different. Enlightening activity is possible by seeing reality in terms of the situation itself, not in terms of the personality.There is no over-arching logic or system of organizational rapport in literal mechanical terms. Reality is the expression of "sameness", that is, selfless unity. That's awareness. The nature of awareness is awake unified nonbeing constituting immaterial potential not different than creation. Conditioned conscious awareness sees "clinging" karmic nature and nonpsychological (real knowledge) awareness sees enlightening potential, or essence. It's the same light (to speak characteristically of the substance of enlightenment). It's not that one sees "light" in terms of nonpsychological awareness of potential comprising the essence of created karmic being. The key point is that reality and delusion not only look the same, they are the same. That's the power of the "buddha way" being the correct study of oneself. The world is the sage. A sage or a buddha is the stabilized unified awareness of seeing unity as is, complete perfect Suchness. Those who see Suchness as is, see reality no different than delusion and see themselves as the same. It's one's inherent inconceivability come to the fore. The response-body's effective enlightening function is directly proportional to the degree one has put to rest the psychological momentum of the "thought/experience/self", as you termed it. To the degree psychological momentum ceases to be (a moving kinetic factor relative to external and internal triggers), it loses its artificially creative/created gravity and its influence over one's inherent uncreated aware enlightening potential. That would be pointing to the ending of psychological habit-energy and its thought/experience/self momentum. As enlightening potential comes to be available to one's ever-clarifying conscious awareness, one is able to understand the meaning of the fact that there are no two minds for the first time and that the situational aspect of the personality is the totality of creation at any given time— that's not cosmic woo-woo, it's your own mind right now. It's all just you, however you happen to see it, whether accruing karmic indebtedness or its lack, which is the manifestation of the real from within its (karma's) midst. The real is found by virtue of the false. They're not different. So for those who have awakened to seeing it as such (impersonally), the human mentality turns out to be none other than the shining unattributability of one's inherent nonpsychological awareness of immediate non-discursive knowledge. This has absolutely nothing to do with sudden enlightenment. The spontaneous experience of sudden illumination is just an evidence of efficacy we have no control over. It literally means nothing in terms of developing an effective practical basis for impersonal adaption to the cyclical nature of karmic evolution in everyday ordinary situations. Your observations on the clinging nature of one's habit-energy attributable to the self-refying human mentality are accurate. That's why karma is "bondage". Psychological momentum (thought) is the aggregate of karmic concretions compounding eternally. It's just the way creation works. It's not good or bad, per se— but there is an open secret left behind by prior illuminates: we are already the essential nature of enlightenment and there is a way to refine away the ingrained psychological attachment to habit-energy. Words are the basic element comprising thought. It is a great subtlety of immense proportions. This should be penetrated by the those with the will to enlightenment. Nothing short of sheer audacity will do.

The Buddha said to refer everything to the self. Most people consider this to mean conceptual consideration by intellectualism, holding the self mentioned in the Buddha's powerful statement as the self propped up and perpetuated by this same intellectual reasoning which is the seat of karmic bondage. If it were what the Buddha meant, how could that have any power? Any ignoramus refers everything to himself from birth to death. Who has ventured to ponder what the Buddha meant by this revelatory pronouncement into the nature of one's true being in terms of correct study of the self? Taoism states that it is necessary to work with what is the same. Sameness is essence. Essence is the self. Life is other. One already has this immaterial essence. That is why buddhism says to see essence on your own, then see a teacher. Taoism says to use essence to call life back from another's house. Essence is one's own aware nature. Life is real potential, real knowledge. This is why it is necessary to deal effectively with ordinary situations impersonally by activating impersonal nonpsychological essential awareness to see through situations and gather the unrefined potential inherent in situations by unminding, forgetting one's intellectual and emotional consciousness in the midst of ordinary affairs. "To study the Buddha way is to study oneself" means that activating one's own unborn awareness, empty of relative cause, is the basis to conduct oneself in the midst of affairs by subtle observation, subtle concentration that does not use intellectual interpretations to rationalize self and other. This is true study resulting in forgetting oneself. To study oneself is to forget oneself does not refer to an instance of sudden enlightenment. Forgetting oneself is activation of the unborn mind that sees without calling habitual perspectives relative to the personality of the false conditioned karmic identity. True study of the real self is activation of the selfless self. This is the authentic practice of forgetting oneself. The effect of authentic practice in the midst of ordinary affairs is studying the real self without removing the world. This is enlightening activity. When Dogen says, "To forget oneself is to be enlightened by the myriad dharmas.", it means effective practice is carried out by seeing the world as oneself. In one heightened experience during a preliminary 1000 day cycle, I awoke to the awareness being such that the overwhelming perspective was one of "it (the entire worldly situation) is just me". In other words, there was no me to speak of constituting an existence separate from all the elements and timing aggregating to define the evolution of a great cycle. The situational evolution was such that its pressure-cooker reality was just what it was with no reflective perspective on others struggling as others separate from myself. Its inconceivably psychological and emotional brutality was simply the conditions under which I found myself, and each cycle within this cycle resulted in the same open-ended basis of times alternating successively without a break. The myriad dharmas are simply conditional phenomenal unreality, but they are all there is to work with. It is by virtue of the karmic matrix that there is the context for self-refining enlightening activity. One's sense, being real knowledge of true reality, nurtured by essential aware purity of impersonal open sincerity permeates myriad dharmas. Though it is oneself, it is not one's own. This is because the nature of the universal is itself aware nonbeing. The totality of reality is thus. This is how enlightenment by the myriad dharmas is forgetting oneself. In forgetting, the myriad dharmas become oneself. "To be enlightened by the myriad dharmas is to bring about the dropping away of body and mind of both oneself and others", is arrival of cessation, the absolute, seeing one's naturre, seeing one's original face. Upon culmination of the great cycle, experience of nonorigination, the empty kalpa, where no buddha can reach you is attained. Nothing further can be said. This is where the matter of life and death is finally finished, and one has completely thrown away all knowledge: this is the absolute of the homeland of nothing whatsoever. In his last line Dogen states that, "The traces of enlightenment come to an end, and this traceless enlightenment is continued endlessly." In the aftermath of the sudden, one reeks of enlightenment. This must be worn off, washed off, rinsed completely away. This is why I say that the "vertical must be dissolved before one can make use of it". Alchemic manuals say that once one has used the true lead (real knowledge), one must then get rid of it. "Having used lead to refine mercury into the gold pill of immortality, one then gets rid of the lead". Dogen's "Traces of enlightenment" is identification with the experience of the foregoing achievement clinging to essential aware nature in the aftermath of complete perfect enlightenment. Taoist alchemical manuals state that "openness must then be emptied". "One overturns the polar mountain, shatters space, sublimates oneself physically and spiritually and enters the tao in reality, planting lotuses in fire, going through endless transformations". This is the meaning of "and this traceless enlightenment is continued endlessly." Hakuun Yasutani states in his commentary of Dogen's Genjokoan on this section, "…that since one has with great effort become the original buddha [in selfless sudden illumination], from here the work of the buddha begins." Attaining further enlightenment upon enlightenment in terms of endless transformations of subtle operation within Suchness, one becomes a person deluded within delusion: enlightenment being no different than delusion. This is the expression of the activation of one's selfless enlightening being where there is a body outside the body. It is just nonbeing within being. This is the significance of the taoist term, Complete Reality, and also the source of the ancient taoist teaching tradition that has endeavored to keep this knowledge alive.

hi kieranperez~ Saints, sages, saviors, buddhas, wizards, immortals, current and prior illuminates, enlightening beings all, are no different than any human being who has ever lived. Self-refinement is endless due to our inconceivable nature. Current illuminates are no different than the ancients. Cetus56 said: I say spontaneously adapting potential to conditions is accepting and carrying out one's enlightening function. How is that different from Cetus56's quote? The venerable poet in the video says that emptiness, in terms of the illusion of a self-nature exclusive of the cosmos, is empty (i.e., a false premise). But he won't go further than that on account of the people he's babysitting. True emptiness not relative to being, yet comprising it, is already the embodiment of true emptiness, i.e., not empty— so what is the point of a sage?. Even in terms of the absolute constituting the void prior to the dichotomization of the primal elements, potential is its substance, hence the standard of enlightenment holds that true voidness isn't void. But these are just words… People who see reality, respond to reality. It's natural. People who see illusion, respond to illusion. Actually, Cetus56's quote is sticking to forms already. What proves sagehood is the application of reality in real terms beyond any philosophy. What's that? Acceptance and fulfillment of one's inherent enlightening function is the standard of enlightenment. If you know but cannot act on knowledge, it's the same as not knowing. Sudden enlightenment does not confer buddhahood on the spot. Gautama was no different. The gradual path of self refinement before and after the sudden realization of one's essential nature is a single continuum. Even getting to hear the words of the Dharma is karmic. Even inanimate objects express the single point of illumination. Delusion is the incipience of enlightening being. Your own mind has never moved. Try not to identify too pointedly with the illuminates of historical accounts. Very few illuminates actually have the predilection to teach, and of those who do, even fewer still are known to anyone outside of a handful of perceptives. Enlightenment itself cannot be viewed as a categorically significant criteria— not only because enlightenment constitutes your mind already, but because there is an infinite range of potentials even amongst those who have seen their nature. In the aftermath of sudden illumination, advanced practice must be recognized and developed. The big hurdle after enlightenment is getting over it. Many people who have experienced sudden illumination find the experience debilitating. It is paramount to get to work to refine the foregoing achievement. Otherwise, clinging to the absolute, both (conceptually) before the sudden and afterwards, is no different than clinging to delusional selfhood in the first place. Buddhahood isn't buddhist; the Tao isn't taoist. No one invented enlightenment even 100,000 years ago. No one can give anything of the sort to anyone else. One must recognize reality oneself and refine away the human mentality oneself. One's own teacher is not beyond one's own heart of hearts. Reverence for prior illuminates is a wonderful thing, but always seek the wonder of profundity: what is it? What is it? It's not religion. What it is? It's not ordinary or holy. What is it? It is not thinking or reached by thinking. It's not practice. It's not good or bad, right or wrong, high or low, before of after. On the tip of your nose, beyond the fact that there is no thing; the intimate impersonal knowledge of the absence of nothingness is true realization. It is actually possible to know absence of voidness. It's REAL. Just this is boundless nonoriginated whole perfect illumination blazing without a shard of your future skull. What is it? ed note: add two quotes + paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5; add a zero to the biG number; add the penultimate line

Mu made a point about speculating about why reality is the way it is— without a doubt, no one knows. There is nothing to know in that regard. It's just the way it is, but there are authentic wisdom teachings being kept alive that are aimed at helping people to become partners with creation; by developing an impersonal relationship with creation based on the potential inherent in each unique created karmic situation. It's not magic, it's science. In terms of taoism, it is called the dual cultivation of the science of life and the science of essence which enables one to take over creation and appropriate its potential for the purpose of natural, automatic and "passively derived" spiritual (nonpsychological) evolution. It isn't "done" per se. It's a matter of awareness potential, developed over a long time of self-refinment. It simply involves seeing. Buddhism calls this "operation" selfless spiritual adaption within Suchness as is. Names don't matter. What matters is that it is possible for one to see reality as is, and without relying on one's own power through observation of virtuous non-resistance, partake of the essential nature of creation itself as oneself presently and impersonally without dealing directly with the created karmic energy of situational process. Instead, one deals with essence directly without intermediary by virtue of the essential nature of the created inherent in each created cyclically evolving situation. The reason this is possible is because created karmic energy and the absolute nature of reality's essential potential not being different is also not different than our own selfless awareness stripped of its conditioned overlay of learned and inherited personality patterns of conditioned identities. That might sound fancy and high-falutin', but it's just a matter of recognizing (seeing) this real potential in the midst of situations in order to adapt one's own impersonal enlightening potential to everyday ordinary (delusional) conditions selflessly, which is how one transcends karmic evolution within the creative without being subject to the laws of creation. It's what being a partner of creation means. There is no reason why. It's just the way it is. It's an open secret in the midst of delusionally created evolutionary cyclical process. Since the nature of karmic process is cyclical, there are universally recognized critical junctures that can be exploited by spiritually (nonpsychologically) developed people. It may very well sound utterly inconceivable~ which is exactly what it is. That's where non-resistance comes in handy, because one does not "do" it. It's spiritual; that is to say, nonpsychological. Therefore one moves without doing anything (in the context of the situation), by virtue of psychological clarity, or "stillness". "Stillness" is used as a technical term because psychological clarity is free of patterned content, or "momentum". The mind-ground itself is neither stillness nor movement. It's just the awake quality of nonoriginated selfless awareness. The truth is, there is no way to see true reality without complete acceptance of the conditional sphere without employing a personalistic (selfish) perspective because ultimately, they are the same, that is, impersonal and selfless. Individuals are not separate from their situational environment. Taoism says that the world is the sage, which means that a sage is so due to being able to see and adapt to the world as an organic totality without entertaining arbitrary conclusions relative to oneself and one another. This gets back to the OP in terms of the "decider" or experiencer of attraction, rejection and null interpretations of phenomena. This is due to believing the illusory knower, thinker and liver of life is one's absolute identity (separate from the totality of karmic being) outside of real absolute selfless nature. One's true nature is enlightenment right now. No one is otherwise. There are no two minds. The human mentality stripped of its conditioning is itself the seat of enlightenment on the spot. Of course, it is not arbitrarily arrived at for the liver of life to come to the conclusion of what ultimately feels good or not, in terms of situational evolution, but actually exploring the thresholds and extreme limits of such stimulus is not for the faint of heart. Meeeeooowwww!! As for making arbitrary distinctions relative to the being that is going to die based on the karmically conditioned psychological apparatus, pleasure and pain, and their long-explored relativity (sexually "deviant" relativism comes to mind), there is no limit~ as for "How far can too far go?", to quote The Cramps, certain boundaries become faint and fuzzy. ed note: typo 5th; typo, 7th; add without employing a personalistic (selfish) perspective because ultimately, they are the same, that is, impersonal and selfless to 10th;

Maybe that's the problem, I call consciousness the universal consciousness and the personal consciousness. Nis makes a distinction, he calls consciousness the personal one, and awareness the impersonal or transcendental/universal consciousness. The OP thinks that there's not such a thing as universal consciousness, so matter is something outside of consciousness in a world "out there".

Hi actualized.org members, So I’ve been a “lurker” for a while now, but finally decided I’d reach out and engage with the community directly :). There are a lot of interesting and unique perspectives here and low-key I should have joined up sooner. The deeper I’ve gone into this work, the more obvious its significance becomes, but equally, the more obvious its scarcity within society becomes as well. Like, I’m one of the only one in my life I see asking these existential questions that are commonplace around these parts so... It would be cool to finally get involved with like-minded “individuals.” I was hoping you all could give me thoughts or insights you’ve had on the topic of Love with a capital L. What is it? Why would it be present? Does it have anything to do with enlightenment? Often times enlightenment is described as pure “being,” which is achieved by resting in a state of pure “awareness.” So essentially, when we’ve achieved this pure being-ness with our present experience, dropping all beliefs and concepts, we become aware of the nature of our reality, self, etc. By only being our-selves, we are enlightened to the true nature of our selves and reality. Intellectually, however, none of this seems to include or require something like Love to be included into the mix. I can imagine pure awareness being utterly cold, detached, impersonal and observatory without there being any sort of internal feeling of connectedness with the present experience. And in this sense, you are that which is aware, nothing “more” (such as Love) and nothing “less” (such as Hate). How could LOVE be a part of this? If Love were to be found within *being,* it would still be observed via awareness right? (e.g. not YOU because YOU are that which is AWARE) It’s just a strange concept overall, and yet enlightened masters have continually emphasized the point of Love within this spiritual journey. So yeh… If any of you all have thoughts it would be extremely cool to read them Thanks!

Truth realisation is not subjective. Truth is impersonal. Absolute truth is not bound by personality structure. I agree that some shadow issues will still remain, as personality structure is transcended not removed. Enlightenment can reduce your shadow issues, but it won't increase them. Enlightenment doesn't come in many shape or forms, again, to say that would be to say there are more than one absolute truths; that is ridiculous. It is personality structure which varies from person to person. This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think tier 1 people can achieve proper enlightenment. Personality structure has to be mature enough to see it's falseness.

it cannot be the I because in that state, the I is "seen" to be an idea which is dissolved at that point whatever it is, which remains, during awakening (i guess the "impersonal awareness" ), whatever the "experience" which is occurring during awakening is also then watched. whatever the insights which come about during awakening are also watched/known/observed since the " I " is dead / gone / non-existent during awakening... then whatever, which remains after the death of " I ", that watches (is aware of) the awakening, is THAT not itself watched by a higher self? so the personal ego I is replaced by something else which is associated with... but that in turn is watched also... is a further awakening or going-meta to this state required to be present from the place where watching is taking place but not in turn being watched by anything?

Yes, I mean dead, as in being absorbed in the now. Not knowing your past. Well, you do know your past if you think about it, but you never do, you are so alive in the present moment that it's fair to say you are dead in regards to being an ego or a person. But you are highly alive of course, but it's an aliveness that is impersonal, you see? Ah, I understand, I was hoping you meant being dead as in being nothing. Like Osho describe in this video, you see what I mean?

@Scholar Those are some good questions. My mind wants to simplify the issue. Yet, it's very nuanced and complex as you are finding. You wrote: "But then when I look at the suffering there is something about it that I cannot explain in words that makes it seem like it is bad. I just can't articulate it, but then there is also something that makes it seem like just another experience, that I cannot articulate either." I go through this a lot. Perhaps it's a paradox. For example, sometimes "spirituality" seems so impersonal. There is no "I". The true "me" is one with everything. There is nothing to do than to be in the present moment. It's so amazingly simple. Yet, it also seems so personal. The spiritual journey feels deeply personal. My direct experience feels personal. There is a desire to grow and evolve. What if we stepped away from the term "bad"? And thought of suffering as energy. There are many forms of energy. Suffering seems like a seeking energy. An energetic yearning for a different present moment. Perhaps the seeking energy can be mild or it can be very strong. When I see an animal experiencing pain, they don't seem to have the same type of seeking energy as humans. They seem to be experiencing the pain in the present moment and may avoid the source of the pain. Yet, they don't seem to have the same type of yearning and struggling as humans. The sense of powerless and loss of control. The thinking about how things could be better if only such-and-such happens. Have you listened to awakened spiritual teachers on suffering? That might shed some insight. I've never done a solo retreat. Yet, boredom over extended periods and not being able to leave would likely lead to a degree of suffering for me. Yet, it probably wouldn't cause any permanent harm.