Has anyone here ever experienced an enlightenment?

[Royce]

It is simply (easy to say but not in practice) a matter of what is in control. By quieting the mind something stops the constant chatter of our minds to be quiet and listen. By quieting our ego that same something, whether we call it the superego, real self or soul, controls our ego instead of our ego controlling us.

We should not supress the ego but take control of it and not let it interfere. How this is actally done other than by willing it to be so I can't really say. How do we control our ego or temper or emotions in normal life and in society?

The ego first asserts itself around the age of two, hense the terrible two's. It is our becoming seberate from our parents and become an identity of our own. It is a necessary part of our personallity and is designed(?) to resent and deny authority as well as say "I am." It usually is also saying "I am the greatest and most important above all others." As we grow older, more mature and our individuallity and charcater become developed it becomes necessary to reign in our egos and realize that others are important too and the there is something greater than us.

If we supress the ego or try to do away with it altogether we actually give it energy as it takes energy to supress anything and that energy goes right to that which we are attempting to supress.
If we control our ego or any other impulse or compulsion we then take energy from it and become stronger and it weaker. It takes practice.

To lose our ego completely we lose our identity and become selfless. This is seen by some as a worthwhile goal but if we lose our self and identity we take on the identity and self of something else. We become one with the One reality, or in my mind, God. This is a final goal and cannot or should not take place until we have become fully integrated and whole within ourselves and our character and identity is fully formed and complete, when we have achieved complete harmony and peace within ourselves, enlightenment which is our goal and purpose in life on this world.

I know this is much more than you asked but important as many including myself when first starting out think that we must supress or do away with our egoes. This is impossible and causes more trouble than good. My best answer is to will it to be quiet just as we will our mind to be quiet. Learning this self control, self discipline is at the very heart of meditation and at first the hardest to do.

It must be done without effort, without energy or consentrating on it before we can go on. Once even partailly mastered if even for a short time we can then go on and begin reaping the many benefits of meditation.

 

[hypnagogue]

Thanks for the replies, Royce and Radagast. The question still lingers a bit for me though. Specifically, Royce mentions a distinction between 'supressing' the ego and 'controlling' it. Royce, would you mind expounding on this distinction a little further? It's not clear to me how controlling the ego is not in some sense supressing it, and vice versa how supressing it is not in some sense controlling it.

I do have an intuition of what it means to be ego-less, from experiences I have had with meditation and certain drugs. But as Radagast mentions, in the context of solitary meditation, controlling the ego and controlling mind chatter seem to be essentially the same thing. I would appreciate further insight on the matter. For instance, could we explore a little further the distinction between the ego and that which is conscious but is not part of the ego? How are we defining 'ego' to begin with?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hummm, isn't an 'absence of ego' (partially) really an absence of judgment(alism), ergo lack of expression of self, from perspective.

"Sound of mind" and 'ego' are sort of distinct, although ego can generate intellectual/mind noise/sound, the other is seen as 'spiritually sourced'. TTBOMK/IMHO
(Ya just got to remember that there are both "good" {truthfull} and "bad" {lieing} spirits)

 

[Royce]

hypnagogue, This is a hard question. While I know the answer in my mind, putting it into words that someone else can understand is hard.
I'll give it s shot for now but please be patient with me. If I think of a better way later I'll let you know.
The mind thinks thoughts, sometimes random some times meaningful that we get caught in and distracted from our purpose. This happens all the time in normal day to day living as well as in meditation. Our soul or super ego can watch these thought come and go without being distracted from its goal and it is only background noise. It can however quiet the mind by not getting caught up and by consciously not thinking of anything. We soon learn to do this without effort or conscious thought or drugs.
The ego will on occation try to get or demands your attention just as a small child tries or demands the attention of a parent. When we are busy doing some thing else it willl try to distract us as a child does when we are on the phone or computer. If we encounter that which it perceives as greater than itself it immediately attempts to block that perception as it is jealous of its primacy.
We control our ego the same way we control small children. We deny the the attention that they demand and don't listen to is and tell it to be quiet. If it gets in the way we gently push or brush it aside.
This is controlling the ego.
Suppressing the ego is by an conscious act of will holding it dowm and denying it existence or expression by consentration as we attempt to do pain. Rather than acknowledging it and simply not paying attention we do just the opposite but consentrating and actively holding it down and denying it it's existence or expression.
I hope this helps. Sorry that I can't do better right now.

 

[hypnagogue]

Royce,

Thanks again for your thoughts. I think I have a clearer idea now of what you are trying to say. Of course, if any further thoughts come to you on the subject, please share.

I find it useful to think of the ego as one's perceived identity: name, memories, habits, beliefs, etc. In this sense it is difficult for me to conceive rationally of meditative states of consciousness which are not grounded in the ego, but rather are different expressions of that ego. This difficulty is quite confounding to me since although it is rationally difficult to conceive of, I have to some degrees experienced and verified it first-hand, either by extreme dissociation or what I guess could be called extreme association, in other words the unbounded unitive state of consciousness. As I have alluded to, my most powerful ego-transforming experiences have come via drug use; I am now interested in exploring and cultivating the transformative abilities of my consciousness through more natural means, although I have some doubts that any such experiences will be as profound as what I have already experienced. But I am very open to the possibilities.

As an aside, this is just a technical objection, but I prefer not to think of that which is not the ego as the super ego-- I associate that term with the Freudian definition, which I believe is something altogether different from what you are referring to.

 

[Sunfist]

I have a friend of mine who did and he forgot it. I feel really bad for him. We were at his house and suddenly he jumped up from where he was sitting with this look of joy on his face. He then started frantically searching for a pen and paper mumbling something about "I have to write this down now!". He couldn't find any and started getting distraught. He was saying, "I'm losing it!" Finally, he couldn't remember what it was. He said it was one of the secrets to the Universe and that it made so much of our lives make sense, but it almost went beyond words. That's why when he didn't perfectly have it fresh in his mind anymore, he couldn't put words on it.

 

[radagast]

Hypnagogue,
When you define ego the way you have, then Royce and my comments don't apply as directly. When I have experienced ego-less states, I didn't lose my memories, name, or beliefs, though my sense of self (as separate from everything else) was much much less distinct. I also lost, for a period of time, all habituation to even the simplest sensory inputs - something the experience does have in common with psychoactive drugs.

Having lived thru the sixties/seventies, I can attest that drug experiences, especially the psychoactive variety, can have a strong effect on our sense of ego and self. While meditative experiences can be just as powerful, they require much more work to get to a point where you are likely to have that type of experience, and are much harder to predict.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Gotta say it, find it comical that no one picked up on what I stated, (my first statement) tells me that some of you, believing that you are practising some sort of "lack/absence of ego" simply put, are NOT.

(little else then 'self deception', I guess)

My apologies if it offends you, then again, it would only be your ego that would be off-ended, soooo, bespeaks the truth once again, and without anything from me!

 

[Royce]

Mr. Parsons, please forgive me but I have no idea of what your saying or trying to say. I do however understand yout P.S. so that is what I'm doing

Yes your sound of mind as being different from your ego is the way I see it and yes part of the egoless experience is not being judgemental but accepting. If this is what your saying, then I agree.

Hypnagogue, Our ego is a part of ourself, of what and who we are. It is part of what makes and keeps us individuals. It is not a separate entity within us but one aspect of us, of our personallity.

Just as our higher consciousness, soul, can observe the thoughts come and go in our mind without getting carried away with them and, to a small degree at first, control the activity or chatter of our mind, to quieten it, our soul can do the same thing with the part of ourselves we call the ego. I think of it as a small unrulely child that needs control and civilizing, probably because mine does.

If we concentrate on anything, quieting our mind or ego we defeat our purpose. If we by effort of will try to keep something from happening within us we defeat our purpose. If we, our souls or upper consciousness simply ignore whatever is trying to distract us and refuse to get carried away or distracted by it then we are on the right path. With practice and learning and disciplin we become better at it and can more effectively reach the meditative stae.

Each of us experience the episodes Glenn is talking about differently yet we who have experience such thing recognize and understand the experience of others. We lose all bond with Earth and our bodies and exist in a void that is the one universal reality. We see and come to know our real self and our relationship with the One and the Universe and nature. It is life changing and joyous and free and loving. Better than any drug because it is real, more real than anything else that we have ever experience or known. We want to go back and experience again and again.

I don't know that we can really go back there again because we are so changed that we will experience it differently each time and the time may come that there is no longer any need to go back there but it is time to move on. Once seen and experienced once we have learned and gotten all that we can and need from it, it too becomes a distraction.

 

[radagast]

Well said, Royce, well said.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP) Yes your sound of mind as being different from your ego is the way I see it and yes part of the egoless experience is not being judgemental but accepting. If this is what your saying, then I agree. (SNoP)

So, what you write seems 'self contradicting' (a Little at the beginning) but you do seem to have understood what I have stated in this "quotes" emboldening.
That said, you say it is "a part", to the best of my knowledge it is the only place to begin, as the "expression of judgment" is the evidence of the ego in action, unless the judgment is obtained purely from the observation/description of the 'Self Evident Truth'. (there is a computer keyboard that I am typing on...not self evident to anyone who isn't here/present/where "I" am)

Very few people seem able to recognize that, 'common sense', in a manner of speaking, as it is their egos that get in the way.
(Same thing happens in learning, really obvious sometmes, really obvious!)

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
That said, you say it is "a part", to the best of my knowledge it is the only place to begin, as the "expression of judgment" is the evidence of the ego in action, unless the judgment is obtained purely from the observation/description of the 'Self Evident Truth'. (there is a computer keyboard that I am typing on...not self evident to anyone who isn't here/present/where "I" am)

Very few people seem able to recognize that, 'common sense', in a manner of speaking, as it is their egos that get in the way.
(Same thing happens in learning, really obvious sometmes, really obvious!)

I think I understand. Yes of course the ego in action is judgemental. That I think is one of its more important functions.
In everyday life we pass judgement on vertually everything we read, see or hear. Is this true? Do I believe this? Is this accurate or real or worthwhile knowing? However it can as you say also hinder learning anythg new. That not what my daddy says. I don't believe that. This does not agree with what I thought was true so it is saying that I am a fool or wrong. Yes its really obvious. Its obvious here i=on these forums (my posts included). If you attack my beliefs you attack me and I will become defensive and retaliate.

It is the other property of the ego that I was addressing when in meditation. The one that says to us I am the great and hold no other before me. There can be only one. When the spirit of truth and light comes to us our egos may try to distract us or may try to block our seeing the spirit or whatever. If this happens we miss the opportunity to experience the light and truth. It may or maynot come again once we have our egos better under control.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP) It is the other property of the ego that I was addressing when in meditation. The one that says to us I am the great and hold no other before me. There can be only one. When the spirit of truth and light comes to us our egos may try to distract us or may try to block our seeing the spirit or whatever. If this happens we miss the opportunity to experience the light and truth. It may or maynot come again once we have our egos better under control. (SNoP)

Are you saying that when in meditation your ego tells you that; "I am the great and hold no other before me" ??

(Mine definitely does not do that, if it did, God's Grace, I would employ the Truth to chase that misnomer away!)

It is only in absence of "Self Perspective Judgment" that there is room enough for the truth to be, to work, to be accumulated as to achieve understanding of greater still, Truth.

Plato asked; "What is God?"
Mr. Robin Parsons answered; "The Truth!"

...it is that simple, and complete, all the rest, are the lies.

P.S. When I mentioned "Good" and "Bad" Spirits, the "Bad" being the liars, caution needs be taken as they will also employ "Partiallities of Truth" as to lure and mislead!

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by radagast
Hypnagogue,
When you define ego the way you have, then Royce and my comments don't apply as directly. When I have experienced ego-less states, I didn't lose my memories, name, or beliefs, though my sense of self (as separate from everything else) was much much less distinct. I also lost, for a period of time, all habituation to even the simplest sensory inputs - something the experience does have in common with psychoactive drugs.

You're right, I didn't state what I meant clearly enough. My experience with ego dissolution has not been that my memories, beliefs etc. vanished, but that they no longer seemed part of the "me" that was in that state. Those things with which I usually am content to identify myself seemed not only wholly inadequate to describe the sense of self I experienced, but (in at least one experience) seemed completely, utterly absurd: I call myself this name, and this is supposed to be who I am? Preposterous! I think of my memories as happening to this person with this name, but that person is not me in this moment. And so on. As far as I can discern, this is what it means to be ego-less, namely to dissociate the totality of one's identity in a given moment from the usual ego construct that is comprised of a name, beliefs, memories, etc.

Could you explain further what you mean by losing habituation to sensory inputs?

Having lived thru the sixties/seventies, I can attest that drug experiences, especially the psychoactive variety, can have a strong effect on our sense of ego and self. While meditative experiences can be just as powerful, they require much more work to get to a point where you are likely to have that type of experience, and are much harder to predict.

I don't question that meditative states that are as powerful as psychedelic experiences can be attained, I only question my personal ability to reach that high a level of meditative consciousness. I know it's a long and difficult discipline to master, but hopefully I can be persistent enough to reap its higher rewards.

(While we're on the topic, quick question: whenever I attempt to meditate in the traditional lotus position, it's not long before my back aches and becomes quite distracting, whether I'm sitting on a hard surface or a pillow. Is simply lying down an acceptable meditative posture?)

Originally posted by Royce
Each of us experience the episodes Glenn is talking about differently yet we who have experience such thing recognize and understand the experience of others. We lose all bond with Earth and our bodies and exist in a void that is the one universal reality. We see and come to know our real self and our relationship with the One and the Universe and nature. It is life changing and joyous and free and loving. Better than any drug because it is real, more real than anything else that we have ever experience or known. We want to go back and experience again and again.

Royce, I don't know if you have any experiences with psychedelics or not, or if I am misinterpretting your statement, but I don't think that the unitive states of consciousness achieved through meditation are any 'better' or 'more real' than those achieved through psychedelics. Nor am I suggesting that psychedelics are instantaneous enlightenment; out of my several experiences, only one or two truly yielded what I would call an ecstatic state of unitive consciousness. But there was nothing 'fake' about those experiences. Indeed, they match up very well with every description I have read of the unitive experience, including the acute sense of heightened reality.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
You're right, I didn't state what I meant clearly enough. My experience with ego dissolution has not been that my memories, beliefs etc. vanished, but that they no longer seemed part of the "me" that was in that state. Those things with which I usually am content to identify myself seemed not only wholly inadequate to describe the sense of self I experienced, but (in at least one experience) seemed completely, utterly absurd: I call myself this name, and this is supposed to be who I am? Preposterous! I think of my memories as happening to this person with this name, but that person is not me in this moment. And so on. As far as I can discern, this is what it means to be ego-less, namely to dissociate the totality of one's identity in a given moment from the usual ego construct that is comprised of a name, beliefs, memories, etc.

That sounds much like the what I think of/experienced as ego/egoless.

Could you explain further what you mean by losing habituation to sensory inputs?

Psychology term, it means the way we tend to ignore things in our environment that are common and we are used to. I once read a murder mystery where someone comes in and kills a man, yet a large number of people swore that no one entered the building. It turned out to have been someone dressed as the mailman, someone that everyone sees, but doesn't notice. When you lose the normal habituation, everything seems new, fascinating, worth looking at. If you've experienced psychotropic drugs, then you should recognise the description.

I don't question that meditative states that are as powerful as psychedelic experiences can be attained, I only question my personal ability to reach that high a level of meditative consciousness. I know it's a long and difficult discipline to master, but hopefully I can be persistent enough to reap its higher rewards.

While it is a lot harder, it is worth it. I find sitting regularly with a group helps deepen the practice.

(While we're on the topic, quick question: whenever I attempt to meditate in the traditional lotus position, it's not long before my back aches and becomes quite distracting, whether I'm sitting on a hard surface or a pillow. Is simply lying down an acceptable meditative posture?)

That's simple to answer, but hard to put into practice. One) be very careful to maintain good posture two) ensure you are sitting in such a way that your hips/pelvis tilt a little forward [if you can get into lotus, this happens naturally], three) give good care to try and relax your entire body while meditating. [kinda paradoxical, relaxing completely yet maintaining good posture] four) definitely sit on a cushion or something that elevates your butt a little.

I had good instruction in this, plus hands on, in person advice, yet it still took me years to master my posture enough that my back wasn't killing my by the end of a meditation retreat. Of course I've always been a little slow. You're a little ahead of me, in seven years I've still not gotten close to the flexibility needed to get into half lotus, much less lotus.

Personally, I would advise against lying down - it's too easy to just fall asleep. With deepening concentration, you learn that the pain isn't something that you have to pay attention to. Pain at the meditation retreats is constant and everpresent after the first few hours. By concentrating on the meditation, I find it doesn't seem to matter very much. In October I will have to seriously put this to the test. I have a six day retreat to survive.

Good luck in your practice.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Are you saying that when in meditation your ego tells you that; "I am the great and hold no other before me" ??

I think what Royce was saying was that in meditation you see the games your mind can play. This makes them easier to recognise when not meditating, less likely to be carried away by them.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by radagast
Psychology term, it means the way we tend to ignore things in our environment that are common and we are used to. I once read a murder mystery where someone comes in and kills a man, yet a large number of people swore that no one entered the building. It turned out to have been someone dressed as the mailman, someone that everyone sees, but doesn't notice. When you lose the normal habituation, everything seems new, fascinating, worth looking at. If you've experienced psychotropic drugs, then you should recognise the description.

Thanks for the clarification-- yes, I definitely know what you're talking about now.

That's simple to answer, but hard to put into practice. One) be very careful to maintain good posture two) ensure you are sitting in such a way that your hips/pelvis tilt a little forward [if you can get into lotus, this happens naturally], three) give good care to try and relax your entire body while meditating. [kinda paradoxical, relaxing completely yet maintaining good posture] four) definitely sit on a cushion or something that elevates your butt a little.

I had good instruction in this, plus hands on, in person advice, yet it still took me years to master my posture enough that my back wasn't killing my by the end of a meditation retreat. Of course I've always been a little slow. You're a little ahead of me, in seven years I've still not gotten close to the flexibility needed to get into half lotus, much less lotus.

Personally, I would advise against lying down - it's too easy to just fall asleep. With deepening concentration, you learn that the pain isn't something that you have to pay attention to. Pain at the meditation retreats is constant and everpresent after the first few hours. By concentrating on the meditation, I find it doesn't seem to matter very much. In October I will have to seriously put this to the test. I have a six day retreat to survive.

Ah, stupid me. Here I've just been sitting cross-legged the whole time, Indian style. I've looked up the proper position after I suspected it was a lot more difficult than I thought given your description, and.. boy. I can sort of do it, but it's not at all comfortable-- feels like my right foot is being stretched way too much, and it's never been quite 100% after a few bad ankle sprains. I think I can get it with some practice, though it might be a long while before I can get the soles of my feet facing up all the way.

As for the back pain aspect, it's nothing I can't put up with and with further practice I'm sure I'll be able to disregard it completely. I was more worried that I'm doing something physically injurious in some way to my back. Ironically, I only get this when (as far as I can tell) my posture is very good, ie my back is completely straight. If I slump over a little it recedes a bit. I suppose this might be alleviated by sitting in the proper lotus position, but then there's the feet to worry about. I guess I'll get used to it.

Good luck in your practice.

Thanks much-- good luck with your October retreat as well. Let me (us) know how it turns out. You have at least one person hoping you can experience another kensho.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
(SNIP) Ah, stupid me. Here I've just been sitting cross-legged the whole time, Indian style. I've looked up the proper position after I suspected it was a lot more difficult than I thought given your description, and.. boy. I can sort of do it, but it's not at all comfortable-- feels like my right foot is being stretched way too much, and it's never been quite 100% after a few bad ankle sprains. I think I can get it with some practice, though it might be a long while before I can get the soles of my feet facing up all the way. (SNoP)

Back when I was ~36 I encountered a slight problem that gave me reason to go to a gym. (had a friend who was an instructor there, it was a Kick boxing gym)
What I discovered @ 36 was that through regular stetching excersizes I was able to increase my range of motion, to a degree that had been completely unknown to me, in my entire previous history, to a point wherein I could sit between my two legs, while down on my knees, (Butt on the floor comletely, between my two feet, feet 'face' down) without any pain at all.

Never before had I been able to do that.

They had a machine that was specifically for stretching the legs out, like doing the splits sitting down, and throught the use of that one, and several other REGULAR stretching excersizes, a range of motion of any human should be increasable. (took me about 6 months)

Hope that helps!

 

[Royce]

Glenn has it right about the ego thing and the tricks that the mind plays on us. As far as posture and the lotus position goes, I don't and can't. If I ever got into a lotus position it would take a heavey crane to get me back up and out of it. It may be good exercise and good disciplin but it is not necessary.
I sit upright in a straight back chair at our dining room or kitchen table with both feet flat o the floor and my arms and hand before me relaxed on the table. I have achieved whatever experiences that I have had in just such a position.

I have never taken any psychoactive or recreational drugs. My drugs are coffee, cigarettes, and ice cream. When I was younger I would have had to include booze. I can not therefore speak from personal experience or compare the two types of experience. The one that you described sound like complete disassociation.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Royce
Glenn has it right about the ego thing and the tricks that the mind plays on us. As far as posture and the lotus position goes, I don't and can't. If I ever got into a lotus position it would take a heavey crane to get me back up and out of it. It may be good exercise and good disciplin but it is not necessary.
I sit upright in a straight back chair at our dining room or kitchen table with both feet flat o the floor and my arms and hand before me relaxed on the table. I have achieved whatever experiences that I have had in just such a position.

I think I'm going to take Mr. Robin Parson's suggestion and try some stretching routines, since it seems like I can get into a lotus with a bit of work. In the meantime sitting in a chair sounds reasonable enough, since you can maintain a good posture without that achy back.

I have never taken any psychoactive or recreational drugs. My drugs are coffee, cigarettes, and ice cream. When I was younger I would have had to include booze. I can not therefore speak from personal experience or compare the two types of experience. The one that you described sound like complete disassociation.

Actually, I should clarify myself (once again). I was talking about the experience I described above (the part in italics-- this is not me, etc.) in order to clarify my idea of what it meant to be ego-less. But that experience came in an extremely dissociative state that if anything was the opposite of the unitive state. They are similar insofar as the ego seems to dissolve and lose importance, but the dissociative ego-loss was a lot more "in your face" than the unitive ego-loss, and also focused primarily on what I was not rather than what I was. In rough metaphor, in the dissociative experience my ego shrank to 0 without much to fill the vacuum, while in the unitive experience my surrounding awareness grew to infinity, thus effectively rendering my ego small and unimportant.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I think I'm going to take Mr. Robin Parson's suggestion and try some stretching routines, since it seems like I can get into a lotus with a bit of work. In the meantime sitting in a chair sounds reasonable enough, since you can maintain a good posture without that achy back.

Stretch until you feel a slight (very slight to start) burning sensation, hold while you count out tens seconds, repeat (spaced out) three times per muscle you are stretching.

If you do sit in the chair, give you heart a break, and ensure that your feet are propped up, either level with your heart, or as near to that as you can get, comfortably.

(Only suggestions, Do Whatever you Want!)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ah yes, that mention of "My Mom", it was an "intuitive thought" that had arisen 'within her', (at last that is what she has told me, more then once) as she had been observing this boy playing in the back yard, less then five years old, and it was from 'within her' that she had known of the need of myself, to be free.
(Lord knows! I had nothing to do with it!)

Just as a clarification of this, the idea that "I needed to be Free", it is from that, that I have learned these...

#1) We have greater Freedom With Rules. (Focault SP?)

#2) "Freedom is a very interesting thing, the more you understand it, the less you possesses it." (Don't know!)

And hold them to be true...

 

[Dazed&Confused]

I found enlightenment in my own home. One moment the darkness closed in like a warm blanket on a cold damp Irish evening, then the wife found the fuse box and the light filled the the room bringing truth to every corner of the room.

Enlightenment, dead easy, I do not why you all are making such a fuss over it, it's not like we discovered that there was never a single Big Bang or that the concept of time as we know it is just a human condition implanted by our need to know when to light the fires to keep the monsters away at night.

While I am rambling on, we have decided that the concept of God and the burning bush, Ten Commandments, the entire Catholic Church, the Vatican, the Popes are and were all the original political scandal that has taken the words of a good man who died for what he believed in and turned it into a yoke for all of mankind.

I am new here in this forum and wonder if any of you share these same views, here in Ireland we find that if you do not just stand in the queues waiting for the Church to take you money, demand that you not question their dogma and never speak of matters not approved by the Pope.

 

[hypnagogue]

Enlightenment is a phenomena falling under the more general category of what are called spiritual experiences. Spiritual experiences are certain modalities of human consciousness (just as normal wakefulness and dreaming are certain modalities of consciousness); as such, spiritual experiences are not to be confused with religious institutions. Conflating the two is like conflating Bach's music with a Bach fan club. If all you ever know of Bach is the fan club, you are not likely to be impressed with this Bach fellow. To be truly impressed with Bach, you must actually listen to his music, regardless of what you think of his fan club. Likewise, to truly be impressed with spiritual experience, you must actually experience it first hand, regardless of what you think of religious institutions. Unfortunately, spiritual experience is exceedingly rare, and as a result many people brush it off without knowing what is meant by it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Enlightenment is a phenomena falling under the more general category of what are called spiritual experiences. Spiritual experiences are certain modalities of human consciousness (just as normal wakefulness and dreaming are certain modalities of consciousness); as such, spiritual experiences are not to be confused with religious institutions. Conflating the two is like conflating Bach's music with a Bach fan club. If all you ever know of Bach is the fan club, you are not likely to be impressed with this Bach fellow. To be truly impressed with Bach, you must actually listen to his music, regardless of what you think of his fan club. Likewise, to truly be impressed with spiritual experience, you must actually experience it first hand, regardless of what you think of religious institutions. Unfortunately, spiritual experience is exceedingly rare, and as a result many people brush it off without knowing what is meant by it.

Very well said.

Personally I believe "enlightenment" and "spiritual" are simply terms we apply to something we don't understand because, as you say, so few people have actually experienced it, and few people today study it objectively (e.g. non-religiously). I would love to adjust those terms to modern language, and discuss the instances of genuine enlightenment as evolution (of consciousness).

Why would evolution be a more fitting context? This is very difficult to explain without understanding the experience of union, as it was termed in the West, or samadhi as it was/is called in the East. A careful study of the history of enlightenment reveals the practice of union was always associated with it. And if one were to study it, not as something to be pondered in awe, but neutrally and analytically so that we can see if it has potentional as a direction for consciousness development, then I think something is there.

If we were simply to evaluate it for its practical value (and I'll leave happiness and contentment out of it even though I think most of the world's problems are caused by the lack of them), one very valuable skill one acquires in union is intellectual neutrality. In a mind that is always "going," and subject to conditioning (often with the individual quite unaware that), it is very difficult to think a clear path from point A to point B because the incessant movement, preferences/predjudices and trends of the mind interfer. Consequently, conclusions reached reflect that interference.

Another practical skill is the ability to better see the "whole." While a thinking mind is often best suited for analysis of details, or "parts" contemplation, a still mind is superb for looking at an entire situation. In this sort of reflection, one pays attention to a situation until overall impressions are formed before translating what is "seen" into ideas. In that generalist view, one best sees underlying or foundational principles that help establish a situation.

Is what we call "enlightenment" the next step in consciousness evolution? Are individuals like the Buddha or Nanak or Jesus, rather than founders of religions, actually evolutionary harbingers? Given the time scale of evolution, and the fact that reliable reports of enlightenment have only occurred for the last 3000 years, might such individuals be like the first kernals of popping corn, and signaling a direction we are all headed? And given the fact that this particular evolution would be something we must consciously decide to do, and consciously work at accomplishing, is the process of evolution itself possibly evolving?

 

[loseyourname]

What kind of evolution are you referring to, Sleeth? Biological evolution involves a change in genetic units of heredity, which cannot be consciously controlled.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What kind of evolution are you referring to, Sleeth? Biological evolution involves a change in genetic units of heredity, which cannot be consciously controlled.

I know what biological evolution entails, and it's not that sort of evolution. I realize physicalists think evolution is completely explained by chemistry and physics, but since they can't make their case I don't yet buy it. Even though one can trace copius layers of physical complexity and interactions that accompany the genetics behind adaptation, what they cannot account for empirically is the quality of change and organization present in life. I emphasize "empirical" because there are lots of nice theories about what achieves that state of organizational quality in life, but absolutely no demostration of it outside of life. To me, it appears that physicalists have lost their objectivity (due to the a priori assumption that physical processes can explain life) because I cannot see how one is able to observe the organizational behavior in life and not conclude something totally unphysical-like is going on.

So what could an uncharacteristic physical organizing behavior mean? I say, it indicates there might another influence present in life which is not present in ordinary chemistry. Such an influence might be an evolutive force/principle whose nature is to organize "progressively" so it can emerge through the system it organizes (mainly the CSN) as "consciousness." In such a case, the principles of biological evolution we observe would be an effect of a more basic force and not the actual cause; and consciousness, as its most direct expression, wouldn't require the genetics of biology to evolve, but instead might be able to turn straight to its originating source and allow that to directly evolve it.

Of course, that is just theory and it too needs empirical support. But my point is, a truly objective mind, uncommitted to any metaphysical stance, should be open to the possibility of an evolutive principle because of the strange physical behavior observed in life.

 

[loseyourname]

That isn't really my point. I just mean that for something to be called anything more than personal evolution, it must be heritable. How would a change in consciousness that does not involve a change in genetic material be heritable?

 

[Les Sleeth]

That isn't really my point. I just mean that for something to be called anything more than personal evolution, it must be heritable. How would a change in consciousness that does not involve a change in genetic material be heritable?

Biological evolution requires that because it is the means for physical adjustment of the chemical body to the environment. It seems you are assuming consciousness is physical, which I do not.

I don't know if understood my concept about an evolutive force and "emergence." Imagine a man wanted to get through a cave that went up inside a mountain and led to a nice view above. A large boulder is in the way which he has to roll ahead of him in order to proceed through the cave. It is very dark in the beginning, but as he rolls the boulder along, it passes little openings to the outside and so the cave gets a little brighter as he gets closer to the top. Finally he pushes the bolder out and emerges above in a very well-lit cavern; a short but steep walk up leads to a ledge outside for a fine view.

In that analogy, the man represents an evolutive "force" I propose is part of the universe, and the boulder is genetics which the force is connected to and is "pushing" against trying to get through the "cave" of biology. The little openings along the way are the development of the nervous system where evolutive emergence manifests as awareness in lower life forms. The emergence at the top in the bright cavern is human consciousness, and the short but steep walk to the ledge outside I am claiming is enlightenment.

So I am suggesting that the force which pushes evolution, and what emerges as consciousness are the same thing, except when interacting in biological evolution it causes "progressive" change, and once "emerged" it is conscousness. While pushing biology it requires genetics because that is part of how this force interacts with the physical environment, but once it's emerged it no longer has a need for genetics to take that last step to the "ledge" of enlightenment.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I've looked up the proper position after I suspected it was a lot more difficult than I thought given your description, and.. boy. I can sort of do it, but it's not at all comfortable-- feels like my right foot is being stretched way too much, and it's never been quite 100% after a few bad ankle sprains. I think I can get it with some practice, though it might be a long while before I can get the soles of my feet facing up all the way.

As for the back pain aspect, it's nothing I can't put up with and with further practice I'm sure I'll be able to disregard it completely. I was more worried that I'm doing something physically injurious in some way to my back. Ironically, I only get this when (as far as I can tell) my posture is very good, ie my back is completely straight. If I slump over a little it recedes a bit. I suppose this might be alleviated by sitting in the proper lotus position, but then there's the feet to worry about. I guess I'll get used to it.

After practicing daily for thirty years, I find my posture has nothing to do with what I do inside (except lying down, which as Royce says tends to encourage sleep). The most important thing is to be comfortable. One thing that needs to happen in meditation is actually forgetting about the body and senses, so if the body is not comfortable, it makes it more difficult to forget about it!

The Lotus posture was developed from the ascetic movement that began circa 8th century BC in India. Those guys were quite radical many whom might be found staring all day at the sun, covered in cow manure, hanging tortuously from ropes, fasting to the brink of starvation, or in other predicaments that required so much effort it distracted from the practice of meditation. The Lotus posture did serve to help one keep from falling asleep, which might have been a problem for the ascetics since they spent many hours daily in meditation practicing samadhi. That's why, in my opinion, the Buddha taught the "middle way." He was addressing the extremes of asceticism that was the standard at that time, and what most of his first students were committed to.

Myself, I sit on a comfortable couch with my legs crossed and my hands folded on a pillow on my lap. If my legs get unconfortable, I stretch them out. It doesn't matter as long as what I am doing inside myself is correct.

By the way, I too as a former "hippie" did a lot of psychedelics (about 200 peyote and mushroom "trips"). In fact, there was a small group of us who did it for the purpose of insight. In those days it was like our religion, and I believe what I learned from it convinced me of the potential of consciousness to attain that without the drugs. I haven't done any drugs for a long time, and I can report that it is definitely possible to get as high without the drugs. I believe what the drug did was give one a taste of what I've described as "union." And union is exactly what the Indian tradition of samadhi meditation is all about learning. But I also have to say that just sitting quietly isn't necessarily going to lead to union. There are very specific techniques for turning inward and finding what it is that one is to merge with.

 

[hypnagogue]

Thanks for the input Les. I must admit with regret that I never managed to get myself into a routine since those posts months back, although recently I'm coming back to it (quite apart from the revitalization of this thread, which is a bit strange). Even with my limited attempts I get fleeting glances at something very nice, but I tend to have poor self discipline-- I get caught up intellectually and emotionally in just the first stages of the change in consciousness, preventing me from getting very far from baseline. Even with this, though, I definitely see the potential to get back to places I've been in the past, which is quite encouraging.

There are very specific techniques for turning inward and finding what it is that one is to merge with.

Would you mind expounding on that a bit? I'm familiar with several techniques (I'm currently trying out an 'embodiment' method endorsed by Charles Tart where you focus awareness in the body as well as in visual and auditory modalities while going about 'everyday' business, which shows some promise)-- but I'd like to hear about your own methods and experiences for any further insight you might be able to provide.

 

[loseyourname]

Biological evolution requires that because it is the means for physical adjustment of the chemical body to the environment. It seems you are assuming consciousness is physical, which I do not.

All I said was that in order to qualify as any kind of evolution, it must be heritable. If Jesus had a son, would he display the same enlightenment? If so, how?

 

[Les Sleeth]

All I said was that in order to qualify as any kind of evolution, it must be heritable. If Jesus had a son, would he display the same enlightenment? If so, how?

Who determines the rules for what qualifies as evolution? Are you saying Darwinists have exclusive rights to the word and concept of "evolution"? Remember, this is the philosophy area, and I am allowed to speculate about the cause of biological evolution. If I were posting in the biology area, I would speak about evolution in that context. Here I am suggesting a metaphysical cause of the physical phenomenon of genetic-based evolution in biology. It is ridiculous to insist I limit myself to biological definitions here.

And if Jesus had a son, it is equally ridiculous to ask if he would display the same enlightenment. It seems you ignored the content of my posts because I made it quite clear enlightenment is attained through effort and not genetics, even if one might have a predisposition towards that end.

You know, just for fun you might leave the context of your own views and consider something new.

 

[loseyourname]

Relax, sleeth. You act like I'm opposed to your speculation. I could care less about your speculation. If you are going to use a term that already has a well-defined meaning, but change its meaning for your purposes, it would be courteous of you to say so at the outset.

You've clarified your view fully now. Thank you. That's all I wanted.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Relax, sleeth. You act like I'm opposed to your speculation. I could care less about your speculation. If you are going to use a term that already has a well-defined meaning, but change its meaning for your purposes, it would be courteous of you to say so at the outset.

You've clarified your view fully now. Thank you. That's all I wanted.

Sorry, I came here this morning to edit out my ire. Hey, I've been pretty good for a couple of months now, I thought it was time to be a brat.

However, don't you think you were being a bit of a brat too? I admit my first mention of evolution was ambiguous because I have it linked to biology, and I didn't make it clear I was talking about consciousness evolving itself apart from genetics. But the two subsequent posts explained the somewhat creative way I was using the word. Yet even though I made it clear what I was talking about, you went on to say". . . to qualify as any kind of evolution, it must be heritable." So it seems either you were being obtuse or you were harassing me.

As far as evolution being "a term that already has a well-defined meaning" and me "[changing] its meaning for [my] purposes," I refer you to Websters Unabridged where its etymology reveals its derivation from a Latin word for unrolling, and where meaning #1a is "a series of related changes in a certain direction: process of change: organic development: UNFOLDING, MOVEMENT, TRANSFORMATION."

1b "is a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse condition to a higher more complex or better state."

2 is "one of a set of prescribed movements or motions."

3 is "the process of working out or developing."

4 is "math the extraction of roots."

Not until 5b do we find Darwinist evolution given as a definition, so my use of evolution was well within its accepted definition.