For instance, from the very first words I wrote in this thread, you have been coming back to me with several assumptions about what you think I am saying, the kind of assumptions that I practice not making when I am communicating. To do that, one must “feel” the words being said, rather than studying them intellectually or cerebrally. When you grok the words, you wouldn’t be making as many assumptions.

For a deeper understanding of grokking refer to Robert Heinlein’s “Stranger In a Strange land.”

Cheers.

When we read or hear a story or teaching, it’s good to put the teaching/er in that context. Where are they speaking from? We may only have a general idea, but it’s worth doing. This can help avoid the idea that this set of teachings is true and that set is false. Or I believe this or that and not the other. Or this one is more dramatic and that one gentle. None of this has anything to do with the teaching. 2 people on the same path will experience it very differently, perhaps one as gentle, another as dramatic.

As your own spiritual journey unfolds, many will need to tap into different teachings to understand different parts of the journey. One teacher will not speak about something we’re experiencing. But another teacher covers that, and so forth.

The only real truth is our own truth and even that is subject to change.

I appreciate there are some teachers who say “this is it”, there is an end to further. And some believe this. But I found that wasn’t the end of it and every time I thought I’d arrived, I was mistaken. There are other teachers I’ve found value from who indicate that as humans, the potential is far beyond what we can reach in a lifetime. I’ve already mentioned the Kalas, for example. There are many models, some more inclusive than others.

From what I’ve seen, Tantra, Zen and Vedanta are 3 traditions that are more inclusive of higher states of being than many others. I have tapped into aspects of each of them at different parts of my journey and know followers of each. I don’t discount the value of any teaching unless it is misleading. I simply try to put it in context.

Yes, I know the story and know what it means. Similarly, I’ve also found that most people who use the word “enlightenment” these days don’t know what it is. They have a grand concept of it. But when the discover what it is, they realize the concept had nothing to do with the experience of it. It wasn’t even a good pointer. But it may have helped us look in the right direction at least.

There does not seem to be a meeting of minds here , like I had with Takuin. I’m not sure what more I can add to this discussion as we seem to be repeating ourselves.

ps – keep your hair long. Then when you loose your head, you’ll have something to hold on to it with.

Is it really a position? Ramana Maharishi speaks of it in a very simple, soft, direct approach – he wrote merely a pamphlet and 40 verses… the rest is accounts of dialogues with Ramana. His entire focus is on self-enquiry. Osho speaks of it as integration, his manner is often controversial, his way of explanation is sometimes brilliant and lucid. Two examples, yet these are easily accessible to the world. But essentially they are both speaking about the same thing – and there are other ways of speaking about it… the way McKenna did is as a sword coming down on common misconceptions. Quite similar to Hakuin in a few regards – Hakuin also had a focus on dispelling the grand illusion that had caught the Zen community during his time – he was ruthless in cutting to the truth of the issue. Was it ‘extreme’? Only relatively, and in that it becomes a mute point on HOW it is said. Rather, WHAT are they saying – that’s what’s important.

My spiritual journey lead me on the Tantric path which is equally ruthless, if not more, a path of chopped heads and rotting corpses (perhaps it does not make sense to you because you PREFER the gentle approach – and that’s fine – but make not mistake, that is merely your preference. You cannot pass judgment over a path simply because you prefer it otherwise. I understand that the soft way of “coaxing” suits a world full of egos, those are the kind of spiritual paths that become very popular. However, in those cases, the truths often become misrepresented. What McKenna did was simply to say the apple and the orange may seem to be joined at the hip, but the apple is still an apple and the orange still an orange. Nothing extreme about that. Unless you want to also think of Aghori’s who eat their Guru’s flesh upon his demise also extreme – yet that is not even an opinion, it would be an uneducated bias created from personal sentiments. It is frightening, yes! Kali’s blood-soaked mouth is also terrifying – but there is a deeper meaning there – as to why it is so ‘in-your-face.’ It takes a little discovery.

From my understanding, every sentient that exists is a Boddhisatva (also an outlook of the Tantric path). But that has come through several years to seeing what Boddhisatva actually means and to explain that would take a bit of time (neither is it so important to clarify), so I’ll leave it at that. No probs, you see it as what popular Buddhism has told you, and you see the importance of living as a Boddhisatva, and that’s what is important.

So, finally… now why would you assume that “further becomes null and void” means Enlightenment is a goal? Not necessarily. It means that these ideas of “further” and “journey” are within the realm of seekers of Enlightenment – these are mindsets. Of going from point A to point B.

Not once did I say that you stop learning altogether after Enlightenment! Learning is forever! But further is the wrong word here – the very idea of “further” does not exist after Enlightenment as you are everything and nothing. Even the MANNER in which you learn (after Enlightenment) becomes something that is INCONCEIVABLE to people on this side of the river.

I take it you have heard of the analogy of a group of villagers on one side of the river who have never been to the other side… and try to imagine what the other side is like. One day a visitor comes from the other side and they ask him to describe what the other side is like. He replies, “it is so different to your side that they only way you can understand is if you go there yourself.” His descriptions would have been only PLACE-MARKS but otherwise, “null and void” when you get to the other side.

http://kriptodanny.blogspot.com/2010/06/marvelousare-you-ok-yesi-am-darwin.html

On Boddhisatvas, I could be wrong. But this meaning is what has been explained to me by Buddhists and related web sites. And it’s clear to me that each being-type has their own type of journey, their own dharma. I did not describe it as part of a dilemma, just as a point of human evolution. Not yet avatar, but beyond sage. Something like that.

As for “further” you said “the process of “further” is only to make sure you keep going until Enlightenment. After Enlightenment, there is no ‘further’ to go. Further becomes null and void.” This suggests Enlightenment is a goal that can be reached. But from what Ive seen in myself and dozens of others, as that “goal” is approached, we discover that we are again back in Kindergarten, just beginning another new leg of the journey. Enlightenment was just a concept that is never met. There is always further, hence “limitless expansion” Takuin described.

“I would disagree that gods are Boddhisatvas. Boddhisatvas are a stage of human development.” – What makes you so sure of this? ‘Boddhisatva’ is not merely a reference to the human dilemma.

I am going to be in Tiruannamalai (Ramana Maharishi’s Ashram) until Sunday, I will respond fully to you when I get back.

While it may be possible there is an end to the process, some final Enlightenment, everyone I know who is at some advanced stage sees the process as continual. This is because the degree of refinement vs the limits of a persons time here get in the way of any form of growth “ending”. For example, in the scale of 16 Kalas, humans rarely even get half way up. Even avatars rarely reach the highest reflection of Godhead. In that sense there is a great deal of upward growth possible.

I do however agree that there is a final “awakening” if we could call it that. But I disagree we should consider it a goal or the end of anything.

I agree there are many confusions with the path vs the “goal”. Some for example may experience an inner unity with self-realization, then confuse this with the advaita of unity. Your example of oneness with God is another. I tend to refer to this stage as God Realization rather than oneness for that reason. However, I can also observe that the shift of God realization is one of those that is experienced as a never ending refinement, continuing long past full Enlightenment.

I agree that enlightenment is not an experience. It is a being, as is each primary stage towards that, as mentioned above. God Realization for example is not a discovery of God, it is the becoming, the oneness with same. However, there is no way to describe Enlightenment (a word I actually avoid) except by its qualities or symptoms.

I would disagree that gods are Boddhisatvas. Boddhisatvas are a stage of human development. I uses gods to describe embodied aspects or qualities of God. These don’t evolve in that sense. Other types of beings also evolve in distinct ways from humans. But we may be getting into semantics again.

I agree that a relationship with God is dualistic. In Vedanta they talk of Leshia Avidya, the remains of ignorance, where a small duality is retained after enlightenment to maintain a relationship with God or guru.

I also disagree about bliss. When bliss becomes contained, along with all experience, within That, it is no longer separate from That. Then it is our very breath. If bliss is not there, the Enlightenment is not yet complete. In fact, it is inherently part of satchitananda. the pinnacle of self realization, before one may even approach Godhead. If it is not experienced in an ongoing way, there is further refinement to come.

As for totality, is there further than that? Paradoxically, yes. The Rig Veda’s 10 mandalas I’ve heard described as the 10 stages of Unity, after “true oneness”. I’ve also heard description of the 10 totalities. I go on about this mainly because every time I’ve had the slightest impression I’ve reached some sort of ultimate, this has been incorrect. I no longer set an upper limit. Others have come to the same conclusion, that there is always a further.

There are 84,000 paths to enlightenment, and in that striking abundance there is often the tendency to mistake qualities of the path for qualities of the goal. Oneness with God is a very common example of this; such a oneness involves an experience of limitless expansion. A kind of limitless evolution and discovery. Such a oneness is encompassed in the “flow” of the Universe.

There is no expansion in Enlightenment as Enlightenment is not an experience. All experiences are within the realm of consciousness, including oneness with God.

There is a reason why Advaita is, when one is being specific, not called One… but rather as not-two. Because the “oneness” of Advaita is quite different to the Oneness of “Unified Consciousness.” Infact, you could say they are entirely unrelated. But since oneness as a word is used for both these unrelated aspects, they are commonly thought to be the same. As an example, if someone says “fluid”, it could mean liquid, or it could mean grace of movement… but to take both ‘liquid’ and ‘grace of movement’ to be the “same thing” – that’s the misconception about oneness in a spiritual context.

Being in a state of oneness with Krishna (or Kali) is different to the “oneness” of Enlightenment.

In the former, to be one with Krishna is limitless expansion. One is in eternal Bliss. The Gods are not enlightened. They are not Buddhas, but they are Boddhisatvas, which is why Bakthi Yoga is such a powerful path to Enlightenment – although you have to finally cut off the sacredness, and along with it… cut off the limitless expansion.

In oneness of Enlightenment, “oneness” is the state (or statelessness) of being undifferentiated; of being not-two… you are not ‘actually’ being one at all, but the word is often used figuratively to only describe the dropping of duality. Enlightenment is not a state of bliss. Bliss is an accessory, and not always sought. It is not even a necessary state of being Enlightened. Expansion is not a necessary state of Enlightenment.

Unlike being one with Krishna – which is not a dropping of duality, but an embrace of real “ONENESS.” Collective Consciousness… Unified WHOLE… Limitless expansion… that sort of thing. This kind of oneness is the realization that you are all that exists. In that, you are one! Total! A totality of expansion!

Yet … there is a ‘further’ to that… as even there you must eventually ask, “Who is this “I” that is the totality?” – That is what leads to Enlightenment. After that, there is no ‘further’ to go, as you have reached the answer that cannot be written –

There is nothing to “expand.” You can choose to experience “limitless expansion”, or you very well can choose not to – just like after being enlightened you can choose to leave the world, or teach people. Saying “limitless expansion” is the experience of enlightenment is like saying teaching people is also the experience of enlightenment. Teaching is a role, a quality. Limitless expansion is also an experience, a quality. It is no more accurate to define Enlightenment as limitless expansion as it is to define it as the experience of teaching.

The reason why no “experience” of Enlightenment definition has ever been given is because Enlightenment is not an experience. Why do you think Enlightenment is so difficult to most people? Because it is not an experience, and they are trying to experience it.

I’ll say that differently to make it very clear – In Enlightenment, you can choose to limitlessly expand just as much as you can choose to play hockey, but you can just as much choose NOT to limitlessly expand, and that does not make you any less Enlightened.

I posted the link to that unique story of Ramakrishna because he steps from bliss with God to the other kind of oneness… the oneness where bliss is not a factor, where limitless expansion is not a factor.

This misconception of mistaking accessory as a factor was created because many have spoken of living in “bliss” after Enlightenment.