Steven Norquist - Audio lecture on his enlightenment process

[Sphere70]

It would be really interesting to hear what you guys think about Steven Norquist description of enlightenment and about the lecture in general.
Personally I like it, he seems like a genuine article and it's a pretty good lecture overall:

http://selfinquiry.org/media2010/11-Steven-Norquist-Oct-2010.mp3

Best,

Chris

[Blair]

If you are asking is he enlightened; no, he isn't.

[Sphere70]

Ok. What's your idea of enlightenment?

[Blair]

What's your idea of water?

[Sphere70]

image deleted

[Cahoot]

Does Norquist mention anything about paying attention?

*

“Genius Forum is intended as a text oriented format so we ask that images not be inserted into posts.”
- Dan Rowden
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=126

[Sphere70]

No, I do not think he speaks about attention in that sense.

That rule is absurd. Images are far superior to words.

[Cahoot]

Sphere 70:
That rule is absurd. Images are far superior to words.

Depends on the situation.

Here’s a word description of this situation:

"Genius Forum is intended as a text oriented format so we ask that images not be inserted into posts. If you want to express an idea visually please provide a link to that image that members can follow if they so choose. The ignoring of this request will result in the deletion of offending posts or threads. There are also issues of bandwidth and load-speed to be considered here."
- Dan Rowden

[Sphere70]

Ok, the explanation in bold is understandable.

And about attention in Norquist's state (and in similar processes) - it could actually be discussed that it is very much about attention - that is attention being the state itself after the 'somebody' being attentive has disappeared, when its falseness and disruptive nature is directly realized. So the state could in a way be crudely explained as an undivided attention to whatever is in the field of consciousness at any given moment - without discrimination from a so-called separate entity.

[cousinbasil]

It would be really interesting to hear what you guys think about Steven Norquist description of enlightenment and about the lecture in general.
Personally I like it, he seems like a genuine article and it's a pretty good lecture overall

This is the first I have heard of him. This particular lecture casts him in a disagreeable light - he is largely unlistenable. IMO, of course.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I've read one of his essays before, and this lecture, taking place 6 or 7 years later, reveals the same amount of insight, although it is better-worded.

There are two insights in particular that are related to the enlightenment process. The first, which he borrows from elsewhere, is that awakened consciousness is regular consciousness, which, if he understands that correctly, is a good expression of the truth that enlightenment is not an affective state. The other is his idea of U=C, a somewhat clumsy, if novel, way of explaining non-duality (there is no self vs the universe). This insight can be faked, but it is nevertheless an important one to realize. It is how one first sees through the so-called "veil of Maya".

The question is whether he is enlightened, however. Enlightenment involves the disintegration of all delusions, and nowhere in this lecture, nor in the article I read years ago, does he express anything to this fact. I would give him a pass if he was merely trying to express the first few steps of the journey, but his intention is to explain what enlightenment is in full. Since his explanation of enlightenment is limited to the first few stages, I can only assume his insight only goes that far. His "awakening" therefore, was when he hit a roadblock and could progress no further.

It is quite common for people to get trapped on small prizes, especially considering the effort required to make any progress at all. The ego desperately wants to be proud of what it obtains, and will feign egolessness to justify those "wasted" years.

[uncledote]

Sphere 70:
That rule is absurd. Images are far superior to words.

Depends on the situation.

Here’s a word description of this situation:

"Genius Forum is intended as a text oriented format so we ask that images not be inserted into posts. If you want to express an idea visually please provide a link to that image that members can follow if they so choose. The ignoring of this request will result in the deletion of offending posts or threads. There are also issues of bandwidth and load-speed to be considered here."
- Dan Rowden

OMFG - the pedants are taking over the asylum...

[Cahoot]

The situation and its aspects holds more significance than suppositions about another’s suppositions, little one.

[Blair]

That rule is absurd. Images are far superior to words.

The only absurd thing around here is you, and your rule-breaking picture.

[Sphere70]

I've read one of his essays before, and this lecture, taking place 6 or 7 years later, reveals the same amount of insight, although it is better-worded.

Yes, the essay is pretty good. It can be found here: http://www.spiritualteachers.org/norquist_article.htm

The question is whether he is enlightened, however. Enlightenment involves the disintegration of all delusions, and nowhere in this lecture, nor in the article I read years ago, does he express anything to this fact. I would give him a pass if he was merely trying to express the first few steps of the journey, but his intention is to explain what enlightenment is in full. Since his explanation of enlightenment is limited to the first few stages, I can only assume his insight only goes that far. His "awakening" therefore, was when he hit a roadblock and could progress no further.

It rather seems that when this shift occur, which happened to him, - and that which in rough lines is similar to all those that claims to abide in this state - it is like the interest in gaining more knowledge (that is the so-called correct knowledge that will adjust the illusions) is gone. That the separate entity which craves conceptual understanding of life is vanished in other forms than when necessary for language and survival.
So the idea of perfection or a 'disintegration of all delusions' is not there anymore because of the disappearance of the only illusion (the root-illusion).
That is of course also the total disintegration of delusions because the question of someone being deluded never arises.
I think the term 'extermination of the deluded' is better because it points out more directly that the only delusion there is is that there is someone who is deluded.

[Sphere70]

That rule is absurd. Images are far superior to words.

The only absurd thing around here is you, and your rule-breaking picture.

The picture was obviously on-point. No further explanations needed.

[Cahoot]

uncledote wrote:
OMFG - the pedants are taking over the asylum...

Cahoot responded:
The situation and its aspects holds more significance than suppositions about another’s suppositions, little one.

uncledote may wonder, how does this response pertain to the topic?

Well, it’s easy, clean, sterile, and non-involved to consider the words of another (Norquist) that were spoken in another time and place, words that are shadows of the realizations the speaker grasped at some point in his life, and then conclude from the consideration that “the only delusion there is is that there is someone who is deluded.”

However, the worth as a so-called “process” behind Norquist’s words is not to be found in the sterility of detached contemplation.

Rather, realizing the nature of delusion is to be found in the delusions themselves as they arise in awareness, which is more personal, and messier.

Thus, in light of the conclusion that “the only delusion is that there is someone who is deluded,” then within the context of the situation, some specific questions arise.

- Who is it that disregards, or ignores after reading, the polite and prominent request to read the forum introduction before posting on the forum?
- Upon being told of the error that was the posting of a picture, who is it that justifies the error by calling the polite request “absurd?”
- Who is it that ignores the provided link to the polite request, thus remaining in ignorance of the rational behind the request?
- And upon being provided with the rational, who is it that stubbornly refuses to remove the picture, and in fact further asserts justification for disregarding the polite request?

For the ignorer, refuser, and justifier of the past, turning attention to the “who” that resides in each question, and inquiring into the identity of this “who,” turns attention towards the nature of delusion, and does so from within the context of an actual personal life situation.

Doing so during every moment of awareness, until a significant chunk of ignorance permanently falls away, is a practical application of Norquist’s message.

[Cahoot]

Sphere70 wrote:
“So the state could in a way be crudely explained as an undivided attention to whatever is in the field of consciousness at any given moment - without discrimination from a so-called separate entity.”

Researching the terms wu-wei, and nishkama karma, may serve as a conceptual introduction concerning the forces that direct attention.

[Sphere70]

Cahoot

However, the worth as a so-called “process” behind Norquist’s words is not to be found in the sterility of detached contemplation.

Of course not. This I agree with. There is also never a sterility involved in any moment - it arises with the structure of past / future.

Rather, realizing the nature of delusion is to be found in the delusions themselves as they arise in awareness, which is more personal, and messier.

Yes, this is so. But I would say that the problem is not realizing the delusions when in them, but instead to ,when whatever arises, that from an analytic viewpoint would be stamped as deluded or non-deluded, can arise without interruption from the weigher, measurer & and chooser, without the need for an realizing entity, that's when there's a relaxation and disillusion (this difference of ours here could of course just be a case of semantics and I could easily say that this process is a process of realization).
The method of division and conceptualization though has its certain place - of course - but it has infiltrated far to many aspects of, at least, my life. Then the method to loosen its grips and let what is move freely becomes of utmost importance because it's almost like realizing that there is an automatic capturer seizing most aspect of life.
The looking into the Who, as you yourself said, of every moment (Maharshi & Maharaj and so on) is of course a great and natural way and response (even though you're way of using it to make a point about the picture way silly. Who is making a point about the picture?).
This method has led in my life into an accessible state of abidance where I consider the gravity-point of the Self to be. It's not so much a conceptual asking of Who the hell is the asker of "Who the hell" but more of a wordless sinking and attuning with the convergence point of the senses. The Middle Middle that leads down, in a way, and that thoughts and emotions wants to stick to and linger. Of course this is still a self (but more with a capital S) - a sensation of a separate individual - but it is so in the utmost sense and the most subjective point of a subjective life, and in a way, for me, the base of all illusions. Here I believe is where the abidance should lie for further investigations (which then happens quite by-itself) because events fall more naturally into place. Like you said - "Who responded to the link in this and that way". There is no who really. There is this sinking center contained in this body, which sits down at a computer, reads a post and responds autonomously to that which is written (to me in this case). Right or wrong, polite or un-polite doesn't really stick. I have of course no wish to do harm or hurt anyone with knife-like words and deeds but that's not a conceptual idea but it is just so. If you tell me the picture is not part of the forums alignments then by all means the moderators can delete it.
But anyways, I don't think the delusions themselves (like do not get jealous, and if you feel anger you have work to do and so-forth) is the problem but the identification of them from the very source of the self is the problem, when this identification happens (which mostly happens when I'm unconscious about this source of Will / the Self) is when I get deluded (or maybe lost is a better term) in what is not (the abstractions). But yes it is hard sometimes because identification happens so fast on occasions.

[Sphere70]

Sphere70 wrote:
“So the state could in a way be crudely explained as an undivided attention to whatever is in the field of consciousness at any given moment - without discrimination from a so-called separate entity.”

Researching the terms wu-wei, and nishkama karma, may serve as a conceptual introduction concerning the forces that direct attention.

Ok, I will look into Nishkama Karma, havn't read / heard about that before. Thanks.

[Blair]

If you tell me the picture is not part of the forums alignments then by all means the moderators can delete it.

Why don't you edit the post and replace it with a link?

I'm sure your enlightened Norquist would approve.

[Sphere70]

Sorry, such an action is not Nietzsche-approved.

You're putting pictures in the back of the buss - nicht nicht to that.

[Blair]

So you would gleefully piss all over the rules, would you?

There are rules in this world, whippersnapper, Rules I tell ya!!!

Not only did you introduce a sham in the form of Norquist, but you also litter the page with a grotesque picture, and act all high n' mighty about it, like you did nothing wrong, huh, what a creep. I hope you choke on your friggin peanut spread.

[Sphere70]

Baconnaise, my friend...
Baconnaise

[Kunga]

They didn't delete hers....maybe they were more educational or worthy ?




viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5891&p=119477#p119477 (scroll up)