Doodle: "once you start to see reality, you cease to exist"

[Benko]

Doodle,

"once you start to see reality, you cease to exist"

Means that each of us see reality through filters of our conditioning.  If you work on yourself with meditation, striving toward "god" or whatever and at some point can actually see reality, not our filtered reality, but what is actually there, then we will have progressed to the point where our ego, our mind, our conventional way of looking at things has gone away.  This is what is meant by "you cease to exist".

[MediumTex]

The thing is, though, there is nothing universal about any of these experiences because they are all being had within the minds of individual people.

Two people can have the same external experience and react to it in different mental and spiritual ways, and one can call it "enlightenment" and one can call it "a good time."

Any time someone tells me about how basically "I'm not doing it right" because I don't come to the same conclusions as them or experience the same stimuli in the same way as them, I wonder if they realize how presumptive it is of them to imagine that they have a superior understanding of how to "do it right" in the first place.  I could just as easily tell them that they are not "doing it right" by expecting everyone else to conform to their standards of enlightenment, but I guess that would be me imposing my standard on them, wouldn't it?

I prefer to simply offer a path and if someone chooses to take it I wish them well, and if they choose not to take it I also wish them well.  Whether one path is better than another path for a particular person is something that the walker of that path has to figure out for himself.

I'm always surprised at how heavy-handed people can be about directing others to the right path.  I wonder why it's necessary to be heavy-handed at all if the path is correct to begin with.  Shouldn't correct paths be more or less self evident?  Why would any heavy-handedness be needed?

I do, however, think it would be kind of cool to see doodle the day after he saw reality and let him explain to me how he no longer existed.

[Benko]

My only wish in posting the above is in case it is helpful to Doodle (since he often makes reference to such things) or someone else pondering such things.  Words have meanings, spiritual discussions have meanings, which are sometimes not obvious.

"explain to me how he no longer existed."

If one is enlightened (not an experience), you as a person cease to exist.  Which does not mean your body disappears, but simply that the person who formerly sought pleasure and ran from pain, and misinterpreted things because of their conditioning, ceases to exist.

"one can call it "enlightenment" and one can call it "a good time.""  Enlightenment is most certainly not a good time.

That is not correct.  This is not semantics.  I'd say it like calling iron pyrite (fools gold) gold, but that is not within several orders of magnitude.

[doodle]

Benko,

What I was trying to convey was the vedantic principle of Brahman as I understand (or misunderstand) it. It seems to me that this idea basically states that as everything emerges from the universe and dies into the universe that life and death and the myriad forms that Brahman takes on are only an illusion of forms. We exist therefore in the sameway that waves exist within the ocean. Depending on ones perspective you could say there is a separate thing called waves in the ocean....or that the waves are simply the ocean in movement. In the second case, the waves exist...but not is the same manner.

Most people see themselves as individuals within an environment. It doesn't take that much imagination however to realize that you did not come from nothing....you came from your environment. That being the case, you are in fact nothing but a unique conglomeration of your environment that is able to see and experience itself. But "you" can never be something separate and and unto yourself and "you" are really just a confluence of interdependent events.

Is this in line with your understanding of enlightenment?

[MediumTex]

It troubles me, though, when the state of mind that another person experiences (or could experience) is described in objectively verifiable terms. 

I would prefer to say that I believe if a person follows a certain path he will arrive at a certain destination, but the only one who can say for sure is the person who walks the path.

I've walked the paths doodle is describing (I think), and there was a time when I felt like I possessed a superior understanding of the value of one path vs. another, but then I realized that my feeling of having found the "right path" undermined my ability to distinguish between right paths and wrong paths and I tried to put aside my feelings of having a superior understanding of paths in general.

My own beliefs about which paths are best are still in place, but I am more inclined to invite a person to try something out for himself than to announce to him that a certain structure of thought or practice yields deeper insights than another.

I know that feeling of "but this MUST be better than anything else" that people sometimes get when practicing certain techniques, but in my own experience often what a person is really saying in these cases is that it's better than anything else for him...at that moment.

[doodle]

It troubles me, though, when the state of mind that another person experiences (or could experience) is described in objectively verifiable terms. 

I would prefer to say that I believe if a person follows a certain path he will arrive at a certain destination, but the only one who can say for sure is the person who walks the path.

I've walked the paths doodle is describing (I think), and there was a time when I felt like I possessed a superior understanding of the value of one path vs. another, but then I realized that my feeling of having found the "right path" undermined my ability to distinguish between right paths and wrong paths and I tried to put aside my feelings of having a superior understanding of paths in general.

My own beliefs about which paths are best are still in place, but I am more inclined to invite a person to try something out for himself than to announce to him that a certain structure of thought or practice yields deeper insights than another.

I know that feeling of "but this MUST be better than anything else" that people sometimes get when practicing certain techniques, but in my own experience often what a person is really saying in these cases is that it's better than anything else for him...at that moment.

MT, have you done any investigation into Zen? I find it utterly perplexing, but I think there might be some kernals of wisdom buried there....Anyways, I actually think that the perspective I was talking about above might do more harm than good because it seems like only a step away from a full fledged existential crisis or outright nihilistic beliefs. An overly rational mind can actually lead to self destructive behavior.

[Benko]

MT,

I am not trying to place value judgements on anyone's paths or say one path is better than another.  I hope I didn't give you that impression.  There are certain misconceptions about enlightment e.g. one is constantly blissed out, enlightment is a state of mind,  which I wish to correct. 

I was fortunate to have access for a long while to someone who really had a good grasp of this stuff, taught me some tools and pointed me towards some traditional sources for more info. 

Tao Te Ching (Benjamin HOff)
I am That

and an 11 page chapter from an out of print book.  This explains many things better than anything I've run across.  I can't post it but will be happy to e-mail it to anyone who wishes (just pm me with your e-mail address).

NB: when you get down to it, a lot of things can only be "pointed towards", not fully intellectually understood (see my reply to Doodle, which I'll post later tonight for an example).

[Pointedstick]

One thing about "enlightenment" that gives me pause about trying to pursue it myself is how lonely of a path it is. Pursuing enlightenment is an inherently personal, individual activity, because each person's enlightenment is different. I worry that I wouldn't be able to bring my wife along for the journey and it would drive a wedge between us, ironically reducing my oneness with the most important person in my life simply to gain oneness with… nothing.

That's why I always find it strange to see enlightenment brought up in the contact of humans being interdependent social animals. Enlightened humans actually cease to be interdependent social animals. Seeking and achieving oneness with the universe is actually the ultimate expression of individuality.

[doodle]

One thing about "enlightenment" that gives me pause about trying to pursue it myself is how lonely of a path it is. Pursuing enlightenment is an inherently personal, individual activity, because each person's enlightenment is different. I worry that I wouldn't be able to bring my wife along for the journey and it would drive a wedge between us, ironically reducing my oneness with the most important person in my life simply to gain oneness with… nothing.

That's why I always find it strange to see enlightenment brought up in the contact of humans being interdependent social animals. Enlightened humans actually cease to be interdependent social animals. Seeking and achieving oneness with the universe is actually the ultimate expression of individuality.

I think enlightened people transcend those issues that concern you. The concept of "aloneness" just wouldnt exist for them. Then again, many semi enlightened beings Jesus, Buddha, seemed to have a great deal of connection with other people.

When you say "expression of individuality" I think they would say merging with the one universal reality. At the point of enlightenment after all, "you" cease to exist as an individual.

This

i am not so sure just because one see the underling oneness or non duality they stop being an individual. do all enlightened people suddenly have the same personality? interests ? hobbies?. i suspect the "light can be both a wave and a particle" is a good enough analogy (probably not as good for actual physicists ) a person is both an individual and a part of a whole. making any political leaps or Jumping from "all is one, there is no duality" to - there is no individuality so socialism wins seems a like a long stretch

i am not so sure "you cease to exist as an individual" is accurate, you cease to exist as an ego that sees itself as separate may be a more accurate way of saying it, of course language will never adequately describe a state of being beyond language... it at best is a sign post pointing to the experience..

[doodle]

there was a time when I felt like I possessed a superior understanding of the value of one path vs. another, but then I realized that my feeling of having found the "right path" undermined my ability to distinguish between right paths and wrong paths and I tried to put aside my feelings of having a superior understanding of paths in general.

MT, The reason I ask about Zen is that this sounds vaguely similar to the concept of "beginners mind"

From Wikipedia:

Shoshin (??) is a concept in Zen Buddhism meaning "beginner's mind". It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, even when studying at an advanced level, just as a beginner in that subject would. The term is especially used in the study of Zen Buddhism and Japanese martial arts.

The phrase is also used in the title of the book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by the Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki, who says the following about the correct approach to Zen practice: "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few."

Saadat A. Khan suggests that "Beginner's mind embodies the highest emotional qualities such as enthusiasm, creativity, zeal, and optimism. If the reader reflects briefly on the opposites of these qualities, it is clear to see that quality of life requires living with beginner's mind. With beginner's mind, there is boundlessness, limitlessness, an infinite wealth."

[Pointedstick]

I think enlightened people transcend those issues that concern you. The concept of "aloneness" just wouldnt exist for them. Then again, many semi enlightened beings Jesus, Buddha, seemed to have a great deal of connection with other people.

But they were spiritual leaders. And you'll notice neither of them had families…

Wouldn't it be terribly cruel to my wife and son to simply stop caring about them? You're not selling this very well! 

I guess what I'm saying is that if achieving enlightenment means basically renouncing the social aspect of my humanity and becoming a spiritual leader, I don't really see what the benefit is.

what rule say you have to be a spiritual leader? why not an enlightened plumber, 3d printer, family man etc
enlightened people can (like all of us ) do what ever they are called to do with their time,
if everybody was enlightened they wouldn't all be spiritual leaders or monks.. people would have the same variety of work and family choices you or i do now... who knows you may have had enlightened plumbers in your house working on your plumbing and would likely never know it.

[ngcpa]

This thread reminds me of a joke:  Rene Descartes (back in the day) walks into his favorite local bar and sits down.  The bartender asks him if he will have his usual, and Rene says I think not.  He immediately vanishes.
Norm

[MediumTex]

When you say "expression of individuality" I think they would say merging with the one universal reality. At the point of enlightenment after all, "you" cease to exist as an individual.

This

As I was reading the posts and got to the one above I thought to myself "Wow, it looks like doodle might have ceased to exist in mid-sentence."

I saw further down, of course, that he was still with us.

[Benko]

Benko,

What I was trying to convey was the vedantic principle of Brahman as I understand (or misunderstand) it. It seems to me that this idea basically states that as everything emerges from the universe and dies into the universe that life and death and the myriad forms that Brahman takes on are only an illusion of forms. We exist therefore in the sameway that waves exist within the ocean. Depending on ones perspective you could say there is a separate thing called waves in the ocean....or that the waves are simply the ocean in movement. In the second case, the waves exist...but not is the same manner.

Most people see themselves as individuals within an environment. It doesn't take that much imagination however to realize that you did not come from nothing....you came from your environment. That being the case, you are in fact nothing but a unique conglomeration of your environment that is able to see and experience itself. But "you" can never be something separate and and unto yourself and "you" are really just a confluence of interdependent events.

Is this in line with your understanding of enlightenment?

It is very difficult to talk about any of this stuff both because it CANNOT be understood intellectually, and because much of it is inherently paradoxical e.g.

IF something is meant to happen it will happen no matter what you do, which does not mean you should lay in bed and wait for things to fall into your lap. More like you should put energy into things and if they are meant to happen they will.

Most of us take ourselves to be "the bodymind" i.e. we take ourselves to be our body (attractive or not) and our mind including our neuroses, etc.  "We want to be liked".  One of the common understandings is that we are not the body mind.  Which is true. We are not the bodymind and from one point of view everything we think we see in our life is an illusion.  But it is a paradox:  We are indeed not the bodymind and all we experience is really an illusion.  However it does not mean that we can go off somewhere sit in a cave, and not interact with anyone/or treat people shitty since they are not "real".  The bodymind and other people may be an illusion but that does not mean you can be an asshole to other "people" or not pay your rent. 

ENLIGHTEMENT:  we are all blind people arguing over what red is like. Clues to enlightment:  most people do things to avoid e.g. fear and pain and seek pleasure.  An enlightened being does none of those.  S/he will not drown their sorrows in e.g. alcohol or drugs or TV, nor will they avoid socially uncomfortable things.  They can be and usually are doing what is appropriate.  Most of us doing things we "feel like" which are harmful to us in one or more ways.  Enlightened people are unlikely to do these things.

"do all enlightened people suddenly have the same personality?"  No of course not. 

PS Most enlightened people are not teachers, and some are married, some are not.  I can assure you, they care, really care more than most of us do. If you were married and became enlightened, you would not necessarily get divorced.  Your wife would notice (because women are much better at this stuff) that your caring became deeper.

DOODLE:"everything emerges from the universe and dies into the universe that life and death and the myriad forms that Brahman takes on are only an illusion of forms. We exist therefore in the sameway that waves exist within the ocean."

This gets tricky, and mentally understanding this (in fact mentally understanding anything) will not help much but since you asked. I believe this is what you are referring to:

There is the "great whatever".  A piece of the great whatever gets embodied/incarnated into a bodymind.  It forgets what it really is and thinks it is the body mind i.e. a person with a name, shape and history.  So from one point of view it is the wave i.e. person/bodymind but from another it is really just a piece of the great whatever (ocean of consciousness). 

I hope that helps and makes some sense. 

[Jan Van]

One of my favorite Zen stories:

A monk asked a Zen master, “What happens when you die?”?
The Zen master replied, "I don't know.”?
The monk said, “What do you mean? Aren't you a Zen master??"
To which the zen master replied, "Yes, but not a dead one!"

[BearBones]

i am not so sure "you cease to exist as an individual" is accurate, you cease to exist as an ego that sees itself as separate may be a more accurate way of saying it, of course language will never adequately describe a state of being beyond language... it at best is a sign post pointing to the experience..

+1 No once commented on this, so I wanted to acknowledge it. Really enjoying the wisdom of all writing in this thread!

As I see it, there is no such thing as absolute enlightenment, just as there is no such thing as absolute wisdom. And the state itself is accessible to all, potentially increased with insight and practice (basically, de-habituation and neurologic retraining). When we are in it, there is no concept of self, as you said i82start, and are not struggling (even when suffering) since we are not attached to outcomes that are beyond our control.

I remember being "enlightened" briefly a few moments yesterday. Once was when I saw the moon rise last night. No concept, just awe of raw beauty. Another was with a warm, genuine hug that caused me to temporarily disappear. Thoughts ceased momentarily and the concept of "I" no longer existed. We all have such moments and are, therefore, "enlightened" to varying degrees, right?

[AgAuMoney]

I think enlightened people transcend those issues that concern you. The concept of "aloneness" just wouldnt exist for them. Then again, many semi enlightened beings Jesus, Buddha, seemed to have a great deal of connection with other people.

But they were spiritual leaders. And you'll notice neither of them had families…

They became (I expect mostly with the passage of centuries of time) spiritual leaders.

As for families, that is definitely not a settled issue.  There is a lot of credible evidence that Jesus was married.  I've seen some evidence of the same for the Buddha but have no way to evaluate its credibility.

You don't see too many books focused on the investment lessons of Warren Buffett or Jack Bogle which also talk about their spouses.  Perhaps there will be a brief mention, but that's it.  And now imagine that 'wisdom' being distilled and transcribed by centuries of scholars and how much would be left talking about their family?

[AgAuMoney]

It is very difficult to talk about any of this stuff both because it CANNOT be understood intellectually, and because much of it is inherently paradoxical

Then is it real?  Or is it simply fantasy of imagination, or worse the delusions of a fractured mind?

[BearBones]

It is very difficult to talk about any of this stuff both because it CANNOT be understood intellectually, and because much of it is inherently paradoxical

Then is it real?  Or is it simply fantasy of imagination, or worse the delusions of a fractured mind?

What is actually "real?" And what isn't a "delusion" of the mind?

which is more real a perception, or a string of symbols used to describe that perception or held in ones head that influence that perception, the paradoxical part come from using symbols to describe an experience of perception uninfluenced by symbols..

[Benko]

I remember being "enlightened" briefly a few moments yesterday. Once was when I saw the moon rise last night. No concept, just awe of raw beauty. Another was with a warm, genuine hug that caused me to temporarily disappear. Thoughts ceased momentarily and the concept of "I" no longer existed. We all have such moments and are, therefore, "enlightened" to varying degrees, right?

Enlightenment including wgat it is/is not has been around for thousands of years.  You are describing a few nice moments.  When you can live out of that nice space 24/7 you have part of the idea.

[Benko]

What is actually "real?" And what isn't a "delusion" of the mind?

E.g. Say your mother had blonde hair, and was mean to you growing up.  For most people that means many blonde women you meet will remind you of your mother, and you will consciously or unconsciously react to them.

When you can see each person, place and thing you encounter for what it is itself, and not see it colored by your prior experiences I.E. colored by your mind, you are seeing what is there, and not what you (incorrectly believe to be there). 

[BearBones]

You are describing a few nice moments.  When you can live out of that nice space 24/7 you have part of the idea.

I am still skeptical that humans can be 100% "enlightened" 24/7. Some can come very close, but not 100%. Even in the words of the Buddha and Jesus (or at least the translation) I think I can hear the ego peaking through occasionally. That is my take, at least, and I find it helpful in my practice.

everybody thinks... the egocentric ways in which we think are deeply entrenched and hard to root out and the nature of language itself tends to imply duality's whether the speaker sees things that way or not, i suspect it is not so much a question of being there 24/7 but having access to to "there" 24/7. If you (and possibly nobody) can be in the moment at all times without living in a monastery or being an ascetic it may not matter.. being able to return to the moment at will is good enough...

[Benko]

1. By awareness you may think I'm talking about the state as if you were saying to yourself "PAY ATTENTION!",  "PAY ATTENTION!", "PAY ATTENTION!".  That is not the idea, and certainly cannot be sustained for long.  What I"m talking about is more like a frog sitting relaxed on a rock, waiting for a fly.  David Allen (GTD fame) has a great discussion of "mind like water" where he talks about this. It's on you tube somewhere but I can't find it now (perhaps in his talk to Google employees).

2.  "I am still skeptical that humans can be 100% "enlightened" 24/7."
Dozens of investment professionals don't beleive the PP can work, because they do not understand it. Similarly, you don't understand what enlightment is (since it cannot be understood).  Here:

http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhismgl ... tendef.htm
may give a few clues

" Even in the words of the Buddha and Jesus (or at least the translation) I think I can hear the ego peaking through occasionally."

You are playing intellectual parlor games here, and the intellect is part of the problem i.e. a. you are not aware enough to know if someone else is elightened, and b. teachers not infrequently do things to produce desired effects on their students irelevant of how it may appear to others.

I posted because Doodle is seriously interested in this stuff, and I posted what I understand to try to help him (and anyone else seriously interested).  I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of the validity of this stuff. 

[Jan Van]

As for families, that is definitely not a settled issue.  There is a lot of credible evidence that Jesus was married.  I've seen some evidence of the same for the Buddha but have no way to evaluate its credibility.

The "official" teachings always state that Siddhartha Gautama was married, and had a son...

[BearBones]

It is very difficult to talk about any of this stuff both because it CANNOT be understood intellectually, and because much of it is inherently paradoxical

Ah, and one of the paradoxes may be that one who is truly enlightened would have no need or interest in saying "I am enlightened." I suspect that there would no duality, no "I." But who am I to say?

I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of the validity of this stuff.

No need to convince me (and probably many others). I bought into this a long time ago, and I have really enjoyed what you have posted. No need to react or judge; I am merely an unenlightened being walking a similar path.