What is enlightenment - the way to God

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by ajay00

A touching and beautiful account of enlightenment by Gary Weber.

I liked reading Weber back in the day as well :)

One must understand that enlightenment isn't just a state of mind or a big opening like is being described above.

Maybe the words of the great KS master Abhinavagupta will help.

Quote:

"The question is thus appropriate because contentment (enlightenment) is not possible without a conscious realization. Contentment is of two kinds. The first is effected by means of absorption (samavesa) and consists of magical powers. The second is attained by reaching a condition of conscious heart-felt realization, and it is the state of being liberated while still alive."

If you can't share that realization then is all within the mind and not truly "enlightenment."

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I liked reading Weber back in the day as well :)

One must understand that enlightenment isn't just a state of mind or a big opening like is being described above.

I don't think Weber stated that enlightenment is a state of mind. He has clearly stated that he felt himself to be the undying consciousness behind the thoughts.

This is the same as Ramana Maharshi stated...


You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it.

All that you have to do is to give up being aware of other things, that is of the not-Self. If one gives up being aware of them then pure awareness alone remains, and that is the Self.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Maybe the words of the great KS master Abhinavagupta will help.

Quote:

"The question is thus appropriate because contentment (enlightenment) is not possible without a conscious realization. Contentment is of two kinds. The first is effected by means of absorption (samavesa) and consists of magical powers. The second is attained by reaching a condition of conscious heart-felt realization, and it is the state of being liberated while still alive."

If you can't share that realization then is all within the mind and not truly "enlightenment."

The quote actually corresponds to Weber's experience and validates what he says.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by ajay00

I don't think Weber stated that enlightenment is a state of mind. He has clearly stated that he felt himself to be the undying consciousness behind the thoughts.

This is the same as Ramana Maharshi stated...


You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it.

All that you have to do is to give up being aware of other things, that is of the not-Self. If one gives up being aware of them then pure awareness alone remains, and that is the Self.






The quote actually corresponds to Weber's experience and validates what he says.

I would disagree that it is in agreement with Webster. Can you point out where he talks about powers?

Also, Ramana talking about awareness, what does that really mean? Is it the Witness of thoughts? That isn't enlightenment. Is it silence with no thoughts? That isn't enlightenment either.

Just a side note, what is not the Self?

To add to the discussion, awareness behind thoughts shows duality. There is a you and thoughts. Are you familiar with the term Clarity?

The manifestation of the primordial state in all its aspects,
its "clarity," on the other hand, is called the nature. It is said
to be "self-perfected" (lhun grub), because it exists spontaneously
from the beginning, like the sun which shines in
space. Clarity is the pure quality of all thought and of all
perceived phenomena, uncontaminated by mental judgment.
For example, when we see a flower, we first perceive
its image without the mind entering into judgment, even if
this phase of perception only lasts for a fraction of a second.
Then, in a second phase, mental judgment enters into the
situation and one categorizes the perception, thinking,
"That's a flower, it's red, it has a specific scent, and so on."
Developing from this, attachment and aversion, acceptance
and rejection all arise, with the consequent creation of karma and transmigration. Clarity is the phase in which perception
is vivid and present, but the mind has not yet entered
into action. It is the spontaneous manifestation of the
individual's state.

True clarity is where no mental obstructions cloud ones state of being. You are pure.

An enlightened being thinks all the time. It is the clarity of those thoughts that are different.

[ajay00]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I would disagree that it is in agreement with Webster. Can you point out where he talks about powers?

Where does Ramana talks about powers, or Nisargadatta !

Is it mandatory that upon enlightenment, one should shout thus, 'By the power of enlightenment , I have the power'.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Also, Ramana talking about awareness, what does that really mean? Is it the Witness of thoughts? That isn't enlightenment. Is it silence with no thoughts? That isn't enlightenment either.

It means that you have no accurate idea of enlightenment yourself , being unenlightened yourself, though enlightenment is your natural state obscured by the mind in the form of habitual thoughts and emotions.

If one is effortlessly in a state of witnessing or thoughtless awareness, it is enlightenment.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Just a side note, what is not the Self?

By this Ramana means all those thoughts that correspond to sensory objects and impressions, which is separate from that of the Self.

Dr. Jean Klein states in this regard...


'Every thought is linked to an image, which in turn is bound to the five senses. All thought, even abstract thinking, is always connected to a particular sense perception, with one exception - the ultimate 'I'. The question "Who am I?" refers to the ultimate subject, which, lacking an image, a projection, dissolves into silence. This is the "I" all living beings have in common: pure I-am-ness.' - Jean Klein

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Where does Ramana talks about powers, or Nisargadatta !

Is it mandatory that upon enlightenment, one should shout thus, 'By the power of enlightenment , I have the power'.

Powers are part of the realization that is why the great masters in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity all had powers.

No, one doesn't shout but if they are gurus it is how they work with others.

Why do you think transmissions are so common within traditions? Lineages?

If you were to ask me neither one was enlightened.

Wasn't Nisargadatta addicted to smoking?

Ramana meditated all the time. Doing so shows different states of mind which is not enlightenment is it?

It means that you have no accurate idea of enlightenment yourself , being unenlightened yourself, though enlightenment is your natural state obscured by the mind in the form of habitual thoughts and emotions.

If one is effortlessly in a state of witnessing or thoughtless awareness, it is enlightenment.

The void is silence and is not enlightenment. If we look at Buddhism teachings you have void=form. It is one half of the puzzle. In Hinduism it is the merging of Shakti and Shiva not just Shiva/void.

The Witness is just the first stage of realizing silence in daily life. It is far from enlightenment. It is kind of like saying that because you can do mindfulness in meditation you are enlightened. That isn't true at all.

By this Ramana means all those thoughts that correspond to sensory objects and impressions, which is separate from that of the Self.

Wasn't Ramana a teacher of non duality? Again what is separate from the Self?

Dr. Jean Klein states in this regard...

'Every thought is linked to an image, which in turn is bound to the five senses. All thought, even abstract thinking, is always connected to a particular sense perception, with one exception - the ultimate 'I'. The question "Who am I?" refers to the ultimate subject, which, lacking an image, a projection, dissolves into silence. This is the "I" all living beings have in common: pure I-am-ness.' - Jean Klein[/i]

That is an AV school of thought. Silence is the goal but what about Shakti? Also as one progresses so does the silence.

Is the gap between thoughts the pure I-am-ness? No, it is just quiet mind.

Are you enlightened when in a deep meditation with intense silence? No, so what is the difference? Even in daily life, silence is nice but it isn't enlightenment.

Now you may have missed my edited post above but please review the quote on clarity.

[jonesboy]

From the Triadic Heart of Siva.

Abhinavagupta does emphasize certain ideas with respect to Siva. Perhaps his primary view is that Siva is the totality of consciousness that is the source of all manifest reality, at once totally transcendent and completely immanent.

Siva who is pervaded in this fashion by a subtle sounding (nada) is composed of consciousness. He who manifests himself at one and the same time as the

16 father and mother is the creator of the entire universe.

Further, he states:

Everything that exists resides within the blessed Lord Bhairava. Whatever

appears within our Heart or leaves the point of our tongue resides, I say, in

Paramesvara, who is not limited by time, is one with consciousness, and is

perpetually united with all the powers. He constitutes a unity which coexists

without contradiction with the hundreds of creations and dissolutions which

are manifested by his contraction and expansion, and it is by means of these

that he expresses his freedom. This reality of Siva, therefore has neither begin-

ning nor end and it is luminous with its own light. Its essence is a complete

freedom which consists in perfect independence determined by the fullness

of all things. Within itself it embraces all principles, which are in effect identical 17 with it.

Not content to let the matter rest there, Abhinavagupta forcefully confutes those who would think of Siva as completely inactive and only transcendent. In the following passage he seems to be directing an attack on those who would equate Siva with the Samkhya notion of the purusa:

The Siva which they imagine, completely pacified, differentiated from all other things, transcendent to all the other paths, similar therefore to something insentient or inert, like a glass, does not exist anywhere at all. Siva in effect is nothing more than this consciousness, which unfolds itself everywhere in the form of a great light. Its very condition as Siva indeed consists in the fact that all the varied forms of the universe appear. This process of manifestation 18 into all the forms of the universe produces itself completely freely within him.

This part.

"Abhinavagupta forcefully confutes those who would think of Siva as completely inactive and only transcendent. In the following passage he seems to be directing an attack on those who would equate Siva with the Samkhya notion of the purusa:

The Siva which they imagine, completely pacified, differentiated from all other things, transcendent to all the other paths, similar therefore to something insentient or inert, like a glass, does not exist anywhere at all."

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between Kashmir Shaivism, and Advaita, or the Samkhya system, underlying Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. Those latter two systems still posit a separation or distinction between consciousness and its objects - whereas KS acknowledges the reality of non-duality (wholeness) - and the range between true nature and "outer" objects as consisting of phases of perception and apparent distinction - but not of actual separation, which would, of course, be impossible.

[Shivani Devi]

It is a mental conundrum between the 'outer world' and the 'inner world' and if both are equatable, there would be no 'inner' and no 'outer' - viz, atman and paramatman would be indistinct and therefore no differentiation would arise, but alas it still does.

It is akin to Ramanuja's philosophy of vishishtadvaita, or the unity within diversity.

As I mentioned before, I am a Shiva Bhakta, more along the lines of Shaiva Siddhanta than the Kaula or Trika school of Kashmir Shaivism, as I also believe, like you do, that Shiva is a 'being'.....but to 'become one' with that being is impossible, because there would still be Shiva and there would still be that which merges into it...that which 'becomes one' and then all would BE Shiva (which it is anyway) totally independent from who/what "I" am on any level...and hence the duality would arise again.

To say that I am identical with Shiva means that there is still an "I" and there is still a "Shiva" to be "identical with" and the problem with me being Shiva, means that for many years, I have been loving aught but myself, even though I love myself anyway, But I love Shiva...which means that I exist AS that love.

I gave up trying to mentally understand it...and to embrace Tantra fully because I could not reconcile the conundrum that exists in 'becoming' that which I already am, but not realising this...or even IF I did, not wanting to acknowledge it due to my heart stopping me...due to me being able to experience this divine love over a simple mental construct.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

It is a mental conundrum between the 'outer world' and the 'inner world' and if both are equatable, there would be no 'inner' and no 'outer' - viz, atman and paramatman would be indistinct and therefore no differentiation would arise, but alas it still does.

It is akin to Ramanuja's philosophy of vishishtadvaita, or the unity within diversity.

As I mentioned before, I am a Shiva Bhakta, more along the lines of Shaiva Siddhanta than the Kaula or Trika school of Kashmir Shaivism, as I also believe, like you do, that Shiva is a 'being'.....but to 'become one' with that being is impossible, because there would still be Shiva and there would still be that which merges into it...that which 'becomes one' and then all would BE Shiva (which it is anyway) totally independent from who/what "I" am on any level...and hence the duality would arise again.

To say that I am identical with Shiva means that there is still an "I" and there is still a "Shiva" to be "identical with" and the problem with me being Shiva, means that for many years, I have been loving aught but myself, even though I love myself anyway, But I love Shiva...which means that I exist AS that love.

I gave up trying to mentally understand it...and to embrace Tantra fully because I could not reconcile the conundrum that exists in 'becoming' that which I already am, but not realising this...or even IF I did, not wanting to acknowledge it due to my heart stopping me...due to me being able to experience this divine love over a simple mental construct.

Aum Namah Shivaya

When you merge you are that. There is no you and him.

Don’t forget the Shiva Sutras.

.24. mātrāsvapratyayasaṁdhāne naṣṭasya punarutthānam
When a yogī, in coming out from samādhi, also attempts to maintain awareness of God consciousness in the objective world, then, even though his real nature of self is destroyed by the inferior generation of self-consciousness, he again rises in that supreme nature of the self.

3.25. śivatulyo jāyate
He becomes just like Śiva.

3.26. śarīravṛittirvratam
His virtuous behavior is the maintenance of his body.

3.27. kathā japaḥ
Ordinary talk of life is the recitation of mantra.

3.28. dānamātmajñānam
His only purpose for remaining in his body is to impart knowledge to others.

All that is, can be found within you, is you because it is not anywhere else but within.

Put simply, people can feel others, can reach out and connect to other people right? People astral travel to places.

When one moves beyond the local mind there is no going outward to feel others. There is no energy coming from outside of ones self. It is all within you, as you. You are already inside of me, Shiva, Jesus is inside of me. The deeper I know there is no difference between us the deeper the realization of oneness.

With such a realization there is no astral going to some place for that is dualistic. You are already that so where is there to go?

Maybe the words of Abhinavagupta will help.


From pg 100

Wherever Siva is present, the

whole is present. If the body is a structure composed essentially of Siva,

then all that is manifested from Siva, including the entire array of universes,

may be found present in the body.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

When you merge you are that. There is no you and him.

Don’t forget the Shiva Sutras.

.24. mātrāsvapratyayasaṁdhāne naṣṭasya punarutthānam
When a yogī, in coming out from samādhi, also attempts to maintain awareness of God consciousness in the objective world, then, even though his real nature of self is destroyed by the inferior generation of self-consciousness, he again rises in that supreme nature of the self.

3.25. śivatulyo jāyate
He becomes just like Śiva.

3.26. śarīravṛittirvratam
His virtuous behavior is the maintenance of his body.

3.27. kathā japaḥ
Ordinary talk of life is the recitation of mantra.

3.28. dānamātmajñānam
His only purpose for remaining in his body is to impart knowledge to others.

All that is, can be found within you, is you because it is not anywhere else but within.

Put simply, people can feel others, can reach out and connect to other people right? People astral travel to places.

When one moves beyond the local mind there is no going outward to feel others. There is no energy coming from outside of ones self. It is all within you, as you. You are already inside of me, Shiva, Jesus is inside of me. The deeper I know there is no difference between us the deeper the realization of oneness.

With such a realization there is no astral going to some place for that is dualistic. You are already that so where is there to go?

Maybe the words of Abhinavagupta will help.


From pg 100

Wherever Siva is present, the

whole is present. If the body is a structure composed essentially of Siva,

then all that is manifested from Siva, including the entire array of universes,

may be found present in the body.

Namaste, Tom.

I once posted an article on here and that article, although a lengthy read, explains it far better than I ever could. Please let me see if I can find it again and indulge me by reading it. Thank you for your time and patience.

http://anaditeaching.com/new/wp-cont...f-Identity.pdf

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Shivani Devi]

It is also very interesting to follow the timelines of the proponents of all spiritual and philosophical thought within India and how they correspond and correlate.

One can plainly see that a lot of plagiarism of ideas was going on, even though all that really differed was the name of the deity (or no deity whatsoever) with which they each associated.

We shall start with Abhinavagupta.

Abhinavagupta (950 – 1016 AD) who founded the Trika school of Kashmir Shaivism.

From there, we shall move on to Ramanujacharya (1017 AD - 1137 AD) who founded the school of Qualified Non duality (Bedha-abheda tattwa) as it applies to Vaishnavism.

From there, we will go to Basavanna (1105 AD to 1167 AD) who founded the Lingayat (Virashiavism) movement also based upon Qualified Non duality as it applies to Shaivism.

Many, MANY Hindu saints, sages and philosophers of all different schools lived during the Indian Chola period (900 AD - 1200 AD), each borrowing ideas and concepts from each other to form their own schools of thought, depending on individual beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basava
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakulisha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhinavagupta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirumular
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haridasa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allama_Prabhu

All born and died within 100 years of each other. =)

Here is also something very interesting I found:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...613-016-0045-5

If one follows and traces the philosophy and art of the time, it isn't difficult to see the connection and how the schools of Atimarga and Mantramarga were formed.

Well, that was an enjoyable exercise this afternoon. It also illustrates there is a deep, hidden knowledge within me.

Aum Namah Shivaya