[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by no1wakesup

Either will suffice as everything said on this forum is unknowingly unattributed anyway. Yet again, hearing that from a mind still identified with a centered someone/self can only agree or disagree with this path or that path. Which is why its difficult for this mind to engaged with life in this moment and so almost impossible to remain detatched from the idea of enlightenment.

The one who is ignorant to its connection, the one requiring the feeling to be connected and the one believing its already connected all come from the same conditioning/illusion/assumtion that there is one there to connect with IT in the first place. It's this solid point of perception thats only holding on to another version (and of course a more evolved or awakened version at that) of itself.

Gardeners in the act of truly gardening are not so concerned with the harvest.

Hi no1wakesup,

The garden, the gardener, and the gardening are all one and the same.
The harvest in that metaphor is the realization of this in the physical.

Of course the gardener is concerned!
Otherwise there would be no garden, no gardening, no harvest.
This is why Krishna said, “ If I stopped working, the whole Universe would cease to exist.” In other words, the universe was created out of God's Compassion.

The ‘idea’ of enlightenment comes from the ideal of enlightenment which comes from the Light itself - the infinite consciousness which is emergent in the physical as the physical, and significantly for self-conscious human beings, as the spiritual aspiration which is nothing other than that same light in the form of concern and compassion recognized and effectuated in and through yoga - which is precisely why seekers are discussing spiritual matters on a website devoted to spiritual matters. Of course, this can be arbitrarily and conveniently denied and arbitrarily dismissed as 'stories' as participants see fit according to the dominant preference of the non-dual forum. However...

An arid intellectual asceticism that accepts a static undifferentiated whole as Being (neti-neti), but rejects oneness in its dynamic multiplicity of becoming (iti-iti) as the one-same whole Identity, is not Advaita, but a qualified dualism. Holding on to ‘this’ or detaching from ‘that’ yields the same result: “agree or disagree with this path or that path”; “holding on to another version”. It’s a preference that separates and divides.

~ J