Human Species Enlightenment

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
ninjin

Post by ninjin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:55 pm

The only "path" there is is the "path" taken away from your true nature. Stop following that path and you'll return consciously to where you already are. This is what the "teachings" are for, to get rid of the paths away from our true nature that we've been unconsciously following that hide that true nature. We can consciously follow a path to our true nature, but then who is it that makes that effort?
As long as you exist you make an effort and can follow a plan or teaching.
Your already there teachings only work for those that is basically on the edge and tipping over.
And how do you know this? Can you honestly state categorically that nobody has realized enlightenment through Papaji's teachings? Can you see how you've taken on a belief here, either a conclusion you've reached or a belief someone else has stated?
It's not mine its Papajis. He says so. He also states that none of his followers was given the true teaching because he thought they were all to arrogant.
The implication of this is that "methods" are for those who aren't ready yet for the what he calls the "direct method". He knew that some people believed they needed specific methods, and so he would tell some people to do this or that particular thing, knowing that they would eventually arrive at the realization that nothing actually has to be done. So in a round about way you can say methods are needed until it's realized they aren't.
Now you are putting words in his mouth. He gave different instructions depending on who approach him. Of course his preferred method was reflection on "Who am I?" 24/7, but saying that the other methods are less he never states. When people reach the final goal what does the method matter? Saying that someone ain't ready for the direct methods is just another way of saying that the method does not work for everyone. Just in a more negative way.
So if someone thinks they need a method then practice one, but don't let it get in the way of the most important point while using a method, the dropping of the method altogether. Keep returning to presence, to what is simple, to what's already here. A little reminder is enough when confused or struggling, "Who is this happening to?" Allow awareness to find itself. This doesn't mean sitting on your butt and saying to heck with it; it simply means to see clearly what's actually happening right now. This is a sort of non-method method.
Different teachers have different methods but yes the present moment is very common in all teachings but what you are to do in that moment is something that differs.
Soto zen claims meditation only leads to enlightenment.
Rinzay zen claims koan studies and meditation leads to enlightenment.
Ramana Maharashi claims inquiry "Who am I?" leads to enlightenment.
Sufism has one way, gnosticism has its way, kabala another, and so on.
All paths leading to the same goal but with various methods and with various success. One thing seems to be true though the more work and the harder the persons worked for enlightenment when it finally happens it has a lot more impact and more lasting effect. There are levels in enlightenment also.[/quote]

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Post by kiki » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:15 pm

This is becoming like Biblical ping pong, you can always find Bible verses which contradict one another - it's the same with teachers of awakening and in the end clarity of presence gets overlooked in favor of words and ideas. Remain on your personal path if that's what you are drawn to. Look less for contradictions and see what lies beneath the meaning of words. "True teachings" is more mind stuff to overcome - it takes no special "teaching" to be what you are; it only takes enough intention to see what's real in each moment. If you believe otherwise that's what is unfolding for you.

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:30 pm

I am not speaking of true teachings I'm speaking of teachings that has been "proven" by people actually being realized by following them.
I point to a lot of various places as suitable I'm still following my own path. Posted it in the spiritual teachers forum.

Foxtrot
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Phila. Pa.

Post by Foxtrot » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:55 pm

This is becoming like Biblical ping pong
It is kind of like trying to explain the color red to a blind person. lol :D

He/she has certain beliefs about what enlightenment is and how to get there, that there must be a path or practice, that if followed, will get you there. That very belief then becomes a filter of the mind, that interprets what someone says on this subject. If what has been said, does not conform to her/his current beliefs, then it is dismissed as untrue or interpretted in a way that does conform. This same dynamic happens within all our minds to one degree or another of course, with every belief we hold. It is called arrogance in this example, but once it is seen for what it is, then with vigilance, it can be diminished, and without this filter, reality can be seen.

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:58 pm

There are certains paths and practices that are better than others.
Staring at a fat cow might bring enlightenment but the chance of that is close to null.


You seem to think that what I write is my own opinions. Well they are not in full I have paraphrased a lot of different gurus in my responses to your everything works statements.
What good is it to call me arrogant and speak like I'm not even here?
He/she bla bla bla. It's very childish behavior and not the better kind.
A number of you have written in the same sort of way. Third person comments intended for someone in the thread but written in public.
So I say like I've said earlier if you've got a problem with my writings write it to me and if you want to try and ridicule me write to each other. Don't see no reason that others should have to read that.

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Webwanderer » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:00 pm

ninjin wrote:You seem to think that what I write is my own opinions. Well they are not in full I have paraphrased a lot of different gurus in my responses to your everything works statements.
I for one, find it far more interesting to hear your opinion, coming from your own direct understanding, than the oppinion of some guru that you are referencing. You, I can communitcate with; the gurus don't normally post on this forum, and are unavailable to clarify their statements.

The effort of getting in touch with your own essential understanding will increase it's presence in your daily life. If we only reference gurus and teachers, we live in our perception of their understanding, and not within our own realization of living. No guru can be an authority for anothers direct awareness.

If you reference anothers statements, be prepared to explain it as if it were your own.

You do make a valid point about third person comments.

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:31 pm

Well since I'm paraphrasing I'm note quoting then I write from my understanding of what they are saying. Also if you really read what various "high status" gurus say you wouldn't find my statements of the need for practice so provoking which is how I interpret your responses.
Basically from my viewpoint when I write the teachers says it takes practice you write No you just have to give into the Now. And so on. It quite fascinating really. Here we are total more or less noobs discussing things that is beyond our understanding since neither of us has reached enlightenment or have had any absolute samadhi experiences (what I know) regardless of method. ET can't exactly say how to reach enlightenment since he didn't use any methods to get there, he didn't learn methods until after his enlightenment. Certainly not those that he is selling. Which is also one point I'm making.

And yes I'm referencing others mostly by pointers in their direction since I don't think there is one size fits all, it ain't spandex we're dealing with. I myself is following the instructions of The Wanderling and his recommendations. Thats where I come in contact with all various people, teachings and books. And I'm walking the Zen path with little cross overs to the adveita vedanta teachings.

Foxtrot
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Phila. Pa.

Post by Foxtrot » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:20 pm

There are certains paths and practices that are better than others.
Staring at a fat cow might bring enlightenment but the chance of that is close to null.
But if you believe you know what you are looking for (enlightenment), and you practice a particular path, and you do not get the results you expect to get,(based on what you think enlighenment is) you may arrive at the erroneous conclusion that the practice is faulty, when in fact, it may be your believe that needs adjusting, not your practice.

You seem to think that what I write is my own opinions. Well they are not in full I have paraphrased a lot of different gurus in my responses to your everything works statements.
What good is it to call me arrogant and speak like I'm not even here?

I do not think what you write is your own opinion in many cases. It is obvious to me, that you are parroting others, and do not grasp to what they point. Kiki, in this thread, was attempting to point out something (poor choice of words I just used, but) but it was going right past you, because you do not seem to have a similar point of reference. This is not in any way meant as an insult or put down in any way.

Example: If you were born of a small tribe, on a remote island, and new nothing of alcohol, you would not know what to be drunk was. If before moving to a country with alcohol, some one told you to get drunk is kind of like getting dizzy, you might think that now you know what being drunk is, when in fact you really don't.

If you quote a guru, but you do so out of context, you deceive yourself and possibly others. Stating things like:
It's not mine its Papajis. He says so. He also states that none of his followers was given the true teaching because he thought they were all to arrogant.
If you are quoting what someone reported him as saying, well maybe he did and maybe he didn't. And even if he did say it, did he say on his death bed or 15 years before he died. It does make a difference as to its validity.


I was not calling you arrogant. If you reread what I said, you might see that what I referred to as arrogance is something the ego/mind does when it is closed and believes it knows the truth already and nobody could ever contradict it. This is not a personal fault of yours. I pointed out in my post that this happens to everyone. This happens so fast, that in an unobserved mind, it can really distort ones perception of the world and the people and things in it. I have observed it in myself and others. The ego/mind believes it is a self, rather than just a bit of information stored in the mind. It then tries to defend this information as right, because if the info is wrong, the ego/mind is wrong. I was writing this here as an insight I've had, so that others may see if they can notice this in themselves, and have a good laugh at what has been happening in their life, as a result of allowing this to be unobserved.

My post came as a response to the part of Kiki's post that I quoted. As I was forming in my mind what I wanted to write, it was as if I was talking to Kiki, and those who might learn from it, so that is why it came out in the third person. This is a public forum however, and sometimes this will happen. As I said earlier it was meant as a teaching of sorts, not to Kiki per say, but to those who might get something out of it. I am sure Kiki and others on this forum know this but there might be someone to whom this would be an " Aha " moment.

ninjin

Post by ninjin » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:14 pm

I do not think what you write is your own opinion in many cases. It is obvious to me, that you are parroting others, and do not grasp to what they point. Kiki, in this thread, was attempting to point out something (poor choice of words I just used, but) but it was going right past you, because you do not seem to have a similar point of reference. This is not in any way meant as an insult or put down in any way.
It depends on the case. I'm not talking about to where they point. I'm talking about how they point. With a finger or with a map. Saying embrace the now is pointing with with a needle into a maze and not even saying always follow the left wall. Giving instructions such as meditate on Who am I?, count breaths and other techniques are the same as giving you a map through the maze some maps might take a few wrong turns but at least you reach the "end". Other maps don't get you anywhere.
And also if I don't get it well that just reaffirms my claim that there isn't a one size fits all solution.
If you are quoting what someone reported him as saying, well maybe he did and maybe he didn't. And even if he did say it, did he say on his death bed or 15 years before he died. It does make a difference as to its validity.
If you read my post in this thread Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:58 pm page 2 you will find this link and a quote. That is my source for my statements.
http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Ysatsang.htm
http://uarelove1.tripod.com/DISCERNMENT.htm
If you want to read the hole story get the books.
I was not calling you arrogant. If you reread what I said, you might see that what I referred to as arrogance is something the ego/mind does when it is closed and believes it knows the truth already and nobody could ever contradict it. This is not a personal fault of yours. I pointed out in my post that this happens to everyone. ...
Well if you read it again theres one thing that it says and there is another subtext. You begin with He/she which can be interpret as to be referred to me in third person. If you were to talk about your own experience you would have spoken in first person I. You tried to insult me just accept it don't try to talk away the obvious.
My post came as a response to the part of Kiki's post that I quoted. As I was forming in my mind what I wanted to write, it was as if I was talking to Kiki, and those who might learn from it, so that is why it came out in the third person.
Which is my point.

Foxtrot
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Phila. Pa.

Post by Foxtrot » Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:13 am

:D I love you ninjin. Thank you for being my teacher. :wink:

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Post by Webwanderer » Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:47 am

ninjin wrote:Well since I'm paraphrasing I'm note quoting then I write from my understanding of what they are saying
I think that’s a bit of a stretch. It you have direct understanding you have little need for paraphrasing others. Your own understanding is of such clarity that you may choose your own wording for the points you wish to make. Essential Truth is constant, only descriptions change. If you're unsure of yourself, it's natural to quote from others, that which moves us in what we think is the best direction. Alignment with our essential being will guide us however, through the maze of teachers all claiming to know the way.
ninjin wrote:Also if you really read what various "high status" gurus say you wouldn't find my statements of the need for practice so provoking
I don’t find application of practice provoking at all. There are two ways of awakening.

One is the direct approach. That is to recognize, in this moment, your True Nature. It already exists, whole and complete. Why waste time chasing around trying to find something that you already are? Disregard all distractions of content and context, and live fully in the spaciousness of aware presence.

The other is the approach of the practitioner. That is to develop or adopt methodologies that bring awareness through mastery of mind and ego. The problem with this is length of the path and the involvement of the ego in the practice itself. It’s not that practice can’t be useful, it can, but it can also be a trap that leads away from presence rather than towards it. And after all the effort and energy spent, ones True Nature remains, as always, here in this moment.

ninjin wrote:Here we are total more or less noobs discussing things that is beyond our understanding since neither of us has reached enlightenment or have had any absolute samadhi experiences (what I know) regardless of method
You can only speak for yourself in this matter, and furthermore, your words reveal the beliefs that bind you. My advice is to forget about enlightenment. It’s a fool’s chase in any case. It’s better to seek clarity. If something like enlightenment happens, so be it. If not enjoy the deepening understanding that greater clarity brings. Each consciousness distracting concept that we release clears awareness for the expression of greater light. These are the metaphoric clouds that block the sun but do not alter it's basic presence.
ninjin wrote:ET can't exactly say how to reach enlightenment since he didn't use any methods to get there, he didn't learn methods until after his enlightenment. Certainly not those that he is selling.
My experience, and I dare say many who have found their way to this forum, may indicate differently. When I read Tolle, or when I listen to his voice, I feel my consciousness drawn to presence. It is the same with many other teachers who are mentioned in this forum. That is the benchmark I find valuable. Does a teaching (or teacher) draw me to presence, or does it set my mind in motion? Do I feel a sense of still clarity, or am I spinning with analysis of yet another possible path to enlightenment? We all must choose for ourselves what serves us best.

It seems to me that the bulk of your comments are critical of teachers, and teaching, of the direct approach to awakening. How does this constant criticism serve you? Or how does your repeatedly pointing out their “crap” and “BS” help others who are seeking clarity? It’s easy to find what’s wrong with life. We merely need to follow the ego/mind’s guide. If something about a teacher is offending you, move on and find what brings you peace and harmony. It will not be answered in your mind however, though analysis and debate. Understanding will only come in silence.

mikel
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:35 am
Location: ireland

Post by mikel » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:01 am

You tried to insult me just accept it don't try to talk away the obvious.
Ninjin just curious, do you believe your awareness is seperate and different from foxtrots awareness, my awareness.

is it possible we are the same unknown entity looking out of different pairs of eyes. If we are totally here in the now, without thought and attatchment what is the difference between you and me? when you here the sound of a tap dripping do I not here it too? If we empty that experience of concepts, interpretation, what is the difference between us on the level of awareness? who or what is aware? if our physical bodies dissappeared then what is the difference between us?

is the nature of space I occupy fundementaly different from that which you occupy?

wev'e probably looked at alot of the same teachings, Diamond sutras etc.

in light of the Diamond sutra teachings, what is the difference between you and foxtrot? and if you feel insulted what does that mean?

ninjin

To Webwanderer

Post by ninjin » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:44 am

There are more than two ways I would say. ETs awakening is one way, Ramana Maharshi is another, Zen school yet another.
ET just removed himself, RM died mentally others have died physically, Zen school practice.
An extreme few became realized just hearing the words in some way or another Embrace the now. Which have not worked for 99% of the realized ones?
You can only speak for yourself in this matter, and furthermore, your words reveal the beliefs that bind you. My advice is to forget about enlightenment. It’s a fool’s chase in any case. It’s better to seek clarity. If something like enlightenment happens, so be it. ...
I'm talking here from a intellectual standpoint not from a practice. If neither of us has reached enlightenment then we do not know firsthand which way works at least in one case.
There is no need to speak in such manners in which you speak. Awareness here awareness there. Ego this and ego that. consciousness smounsciouness.
We all must choose for ourselves what serves us best.
Exactly which is the point I'm trying to make with my statement that we are not talking about spandex.
It seems to me that the bulk of your comments are critical of teachers, and teaching, of the direct approach to awakening. How does this constant criticism serve you? Or how does your repeatedly pointing out their “crap” and “BS” help others who are seeking clarity? It’s easy to find what’s wrong with life. We merely need to follow the ego/mind’s guide. If something about a teacher is offending you, move on and find what brings you peace and harmony. It will not be answered in your mind however, though analysis and debate. Understanding will only come in silence.
Which teachers have I said was crap and which have I said was not crap?
Do you see any differences? Have I really called all those that use direct language crap or just those that belong to a certain group?
Have teachers really offended me, have I really made such comments?
Have I not really in more harsh words said beware of these teachers because they not be what they claim?

What if debate brings me peace? What if knowledge is my way to understanding and reaching enlightenment? As you say everything works as long as you embrace the now. Then why deny me my way?

Mention one that has reached sudden enlightenment by just embracing the Now without practice and without any idea of anything we are talking about? And those that have do you really think they know how to help others get there? Reverse engineering is most difficult.

ninjin

To mikel

Post by ninjin » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:54 am

Ninjin just curious, do you believe your awareness is seperate and different from foxtrots awareness, my awareness.
I have no idea which definition of awareness you are referring to here. If you define it or point to a teachers definition then I might answer that question.


is it possible we are the same unknown entity looking out of different pairs of eyes.
Nope because that would suggest duality.
If we are totally here in the now, without thought and attatchment what is the difference between you and me?
Our personalities and knowledge.
when you here the sound of a tap dripping do I not here it too?
Only if the tap is in hearing range.
If we empty that experience of concepts, interpretation, what is the difference between us on the level of awareness? who or what is aware? if our physical bodies dissappeared then what is the difference between us?
Now you suggest that are something else but our physical bodies. We are the physical bodies. We are a creation of our bodies. We do not exist without them. And when the bodies die we die so when we are dead there is no other difference than neither of us exists.

mikel
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:35 am
Location: ireland

Post by mikel » Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:19 pm

Quote:

If we are totally here in the now, without thought and attatchment what is the difference between you and me?


Our personalities and knowledge.

are you this personality and knowledge?

Post Reply