The Occurrence of Ultimate Enlightenment

[divine focus]

Ultimate enlightenment is not the realization of the subject like I previously formulated. You remain objective (physically focused) while the subjective does its thing. The experience is one of losing all sense of self tied to a body-mind. I've come across a couple of people in whom ultimate enlightenment has occurred, one being Tony Parsons and the other being Lisa Cairns. You can find many videos on Youtube by both of them. I seem to have grown into ultimate enlightenment over the course of two months, but for Tony and Lisa it was one sudden awakening. I've had a consciousness awakening a year ago when all seeking stopped, but it wasn't until two months ago that I got to experience a fast-paced evolution into choiceless enlightenment.

One barometer of ultimate enlightenment is the lack of a personal agenda that comes from you objectively. The subjective awareness can produce an agenda in you, but you can tell it's not something coming from your body-mind field. Another barometer is that it makes no sense that you could ever be stressed or agitated again. Not that you haven't been stressed or agitated in recent memory, but that it would be ludicrous to happen now or ever more.

Listen to a video or two from either of the two enlightened people I mentioned to get a clearer sense of the ultimately enlightened state and comment here if you're moved to.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The experience is one of losing all sense of self tied to a body-mind.

That's called a dissociative state. It's another of those self-protection schemes of the mind and not a solution to suffering. But for those who need such protection, after seeing glimpsing of the dark abyses of emptiness and the stunning nature of ones own suffering, the mind is wise enough to supply it. Only the strong and rare would dare to move forward from here.

[Cahoot]

Piety barometer: sad world sans ludicrous.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Buddha talks about the unsatisfactory, "sad" nature of all occurrences which are phenomenal by definition. Enlightenment as occurrence or "break through" will remain unsatisfactory in essence because it's human nature to assign a meaning or status to it, then cling to it, and fortifying by non-stop spinning nonsense or suppressing the tough questions (aka silencing the mind). It might provide good feeling or a shielding of bad feeling (does one understand that dynamic?) but the essence of that occurrence and aftermath will still remain unsatisfactory: it has no power to satisfy since that can only be done by understanding the emptiness (the "ludicrousness") of the very thing just obtained.

[Pam Seeback]

divine focus: The experience is one of losing all sense of self tied to a body-mind.

This is the effect of the cause of wanting to exit the home of suffering, sentience, a common philosophical experience. If a person is honest with themselves when they reach this point on the journey, they will acknowledge that there is no suffering greater than the desire to consciously leave behind that which they cannot consciously leave behind (I am That I am). Even suicides are not certain that the act of taking their (suffering) sentient life will end their consciousness of sentience (suffering).

You spoke of unconditional acceptance in another thread. Why do you not unconditionally accept the suffering of your body-mind consciousness?

[Cahoot]

The experience is one of losing all sense of self tied to a body-mind.

This is the dualistic remembrance of non-dual, object-less awareness of silent mind which subsequently suffuses dualistic subject/object perception with peace ... the peaceful, locus of consciousness, experiential "I."

Tough questions are often nothing more than a ludicrous spinning lathe of mind-created contradictions based on faulty premises, faulty in the sense of conceptual misunderstandings. Suppression is a dictatorial form of avoidance born of dualism and enforced by censorship, which is achieved by banning in one form or another. Book burning, book banning, banning a voice from an internet forum, even suicidal attempts to ban awareness from life … control struggling to shape a world based on preconceptions (one of which is self-concept), not at all aka the non-dual aliveness of silent mind.

[Pam Seeback]

df, I agree with Tony Parsons that freedom comes when the seeking for enlightenment ends - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD3Xvkcbn7ca - but I do not agree that when this contracted seeker of enlightenment "collapses" that what is "left" is an unknowable, free-flowing, unbridled, unbounded energy. Why? Because when the seeker for enlightenment collapses, seeking remains, and where there is seeking, there is the sense of being bound. Is this sense of being bound to seeking illusory or is it real? Ultimately it doesn't matter.

Bottom line, although Mr. Parsons realizes the the nature of seeking to be an impersonal one he has not yet realized the impersonal nature of seeking to be causal in nature. At least in this one video and on his Open Secret website he makes no mention of consciousness of causality, at least none that I could find. Without the missing wisdom of being a seeking agent for causality, one is left hanging "in the void", a hellishly vacant place indeed.

[divine focus]

The experience is one of losing all sense of self tied to a body-mind.

That's called a dissociative state. It's another of those self-protection schemes of the mind and not a solution to suffering. But for those who need such protection, after seeing glimpsing of the dark abyses of emptiness and the stunning nature of ones own suffering, the mind is wise enough to supply it. Only the strong and rare would dare to move forward from here.

I have not experienced any suffering like this. I must have very frail sensibilities if I need protection from not much suffering.

[divine focus]

Buddha talks about the unsatisfactory, "sad" nature of all occurrences which are phenomenal by definition. Enlightenment as occurrence or "break through" will remain unsatisfactory in essence because it's human nature to assign a meaning or status to it, then cling to it, and fortifying by non-stop spinning nonsense or suppressing the tough questions (aka silencing the mind). It might provide good feeling or a shielding of bad feeling (does one understand that dynamic?) but the essence of that occurrence and aftermath will still remain unsatisfactory: it has no power to satisfy since that can only be done by understanding the emptiness (the "ludicrousness") of the very thing just obtained.

What if no one is there to cling or fortify or suppress? It does feel good, but so what? I've experienced a state of bliss for a period of two years straight, before enlightenment; before even awakening. It was nice, but not a big deal.

[divine focus]

divine focus: The experience is one of losing all sense of self tied to a body-mind.

This is the effect of the cause of wanting to exit the home of suffering, sentience, a common philosophical experience. If a person is honest with themselves when they reach this point on the journey, they will acknowledge that there is no suffering greater than the desire to consciously leave behind that which they cannot consciously leave behind (I am That I am). Even suicides are not certain that the act of taking their (suffering) sentient life will end their consciousness of sentience (suffering).

You spoke of unconditional acceptance in another thread. Why do you not unconditionally accept the suffering of your body-mind consciousness?

Because I don't have any! Why is that so hard to believe? Even upon greater enlightenment (not the ultimate) I was pretty OK. Ultimate enlightenment is characterized by the lack of desire (same as the lack of personal agenda). With no desire, how can there be suffering? I only desire to do things, like eat. Things and circumstances don't matter.

[divine focus]

The experience is one of losing all sense of self tied to a body-mind.

This is the dualistic remembrance of non-dual, object-less awareness of silent mind which subsequently suffuses dualistic subject/object perception with peace ... the peaceful, locus of consciousness, experiential "I."

I do have silent mind (I think you're saying this). "Locus of consciousness"...not sure what you mean here. Consciousness itself is not the experiential "I." The "I" is what Leyla described in another thread, "the discernible continuity of...experience."

[divine focus]

df, I agree with Tony Parsons that freedom comes when the seeking for enlightenment ends - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD3Xvkcbn7ca - but I do not agree that when this contracted seeker of enlightenment "collapses" that what is "left" is an unknowable, free-flowing, unbridled, unbounded energy. Why? Because when the seeker for enlightenment collapses, seeking remains, and where there is seeking, there is the sense of being bound. Is this sense of being bound to seeking illusory or is it real? Ultimately it doesn't matter.

Bottom line, although Mr. Parsons realizes the the nature of seeking to be an impersonal one he has not yet realized the impersonal nature of seeking to be causal in nature. At least in this one video and on his Open Secret website he makes no mention of consciousness of causality, at least none that I could find. Without the missing wisdom of being a seeking agent for causality, one is left hanging "in the void", a hellishly vacant place indeed.

Seeking stops when the seeker "collapses" (or whatever). It's the seeker who seeks, not consciousness (the "absolute"). It could be boundless if there's no seeking, right?

"Seeking agent for causality"... Does that mean you're seeking to gain causality? Is there a foreseeable end to such seeking? How could one become causality, unless they were already causality? And once you know you're causality, do you know the origination of the human species, for example?

[Cahoot]

I do have silent mind (I think you're saying this).

Of that I do not doubt, nor do I doubt your honest sincerity.

When transitioning out of the meditative state, of which pratyahara is an aspect, in which the sensory gates are closed and awareness has been disconnected from external stimuli, when conceptual thought begins like a single drop in a clear and still pool of water, that first drop of “I Am” consciousness may course through the visual cortex, resulting in awareness directly connected to visions rather than discursive thought. The knack of surrender in this situation is to accept without fear or a desire to change anything so that no ripples appear on the still surface of mind to jar awareness from this newness, and so in the absence of sensory stimuli associating with awareness arises a vision of physical location, though personal identity associated with awareness has not returned. A perfectly clear, sharp, still and unwavering vision, outside of time, to be observed in any aspect of detail, or complete as a whole. It is like gazing with the eyes though much steadier since there is no movement in the vision, no shifting of focus as with the eyes, and the vision does not morph as in a dream. The scene is of the immediate surroundings, though bathed with a different kind of light than what is customarily perceived through the senses, as if the light emanates from the vision itself rather than bouncing off the vision. After this, when you are again in the world and perceiving surroundings with mind interpretations of the five senses, the thought may occur … was that vision a reconstruction of memory made perfect due to unwavering still mind, or was that a direct perception of reality via mind in a way that bypasses the senses? Stay with the inquiry and permutations within an intellectual analysis of perceived reality as an inferential construct may follow.

Still mind is one aspect. Insight is another.

Should your interest be piqued, Shinzen Young skillfully explains, and offers a conceptual order to explain the realizations of Parsons but with a bit more meat, as a touchstone to further your purpose of communicating experiences, here and now.

http://www.shinzen.org/Articles/artHow.htm

Lest you pigeon-hole me as a devotee of Young, this work is my only contact with his thoughts, and it rings true.

[Pam Seeback]

divine focus: Seeking stops when the seeker "collapses" (or whatever). It's the seeker who seeks, not consciousness (the "absolute"). It could be boundless if there's no seeking, right?

You are not reasoning things through. How does the absolute reveal itself if it doesn’t seek (move) within itself? You’re separating the absolute from its thinking aspect, man, why? As for boundlessness, there is no such thing, or if there is, a conscious being cannot experience it. Even if were possible for a conscious being to experience boundlessness, who would want to? To see no contrast, to see nothing, to feeling nothing, to taste nothing, to reason nothing, sounds like absolute hell to me.

"Seeking agent for causality"... Does that mean you're seeking to gain causality? Is there a foreseeable end to such seeking? How could one become causality, unless they were already causality? And once you know you're causality, do you know the origination of the human species, for example?

There is no foreseeable end to being the seeking agent for causality, which is not about gaining, but revealing. One is, as you suggested, “already causality.” But as I concluded above, causes cannot be revealed unless seeking is present. Rest (no seeking) and motion (seeking), this is the way of revelation.

One who seeks for causes or reasons in the light of it being “the way, the truth and the life” realizes that no single cause such as THE origination of the human species can possibly be found. And thank God, if such a thing were possible, thinking, therefore human consciousness would cease to exist. Built into every conclusion is the wise man's knowing that it is but for the moment and the moment only, "the moving finger writes, having writ, moves on." ~ Omar Khayyam. "There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." ~ Leonard Cohen

[divine focus]

divine focus: Seeking stops when the seeker "collapses" (or whatever). It's the seeker who seeks, not consciousness (the "absolute"). It could be boundless if there's no seeking, right?

You are not reasoning things through. How does the absolute reveal itself if it doesn’t seek (move) within itself? You’re separating the absolute from its thinking aspect, man, why? As for boundlessness, there is no such thing, or if there is, a conscious being cannot experience it. Even if were possible for a conscious being to experience boundlessness, who would want to? To see no contrast, to see nothing, to feeling nothing, to taste nothing, to reason nothing, sounds like absolute hell to me.

OK, you have a different definition of seeking. Parsons means seeking for enlightenment. It's like an itch you can't scratch; you just gotta have it and now, right away. Enlightenment for most people is not the idea of causality. They're not sure what it is, but it's the end of all problems, worry, etc.

Boundlessness is just the absence of a contracted sense of self in the centers of awareness. To be bound just means to have a sense of self tied to a body-mind. You still see, feel, taste, and reason upon liberation. Contrast, though, there may not be any of, depending on what you mean.

[divine focus]

When transitioning out of the meditative state, of which pratyahara is an aspect, in which the sensory gates are closed and awareness has been disconnected from external stimuli, when conceptual thought begins like a single drop in a clear and still pool of water, that first drop of “I Am” consciousness may course through the visual cortex, resulting in awareness directly connected to visions rather than discursive thought. The knack of surrender in this situation is to accept without fear or a desire to change anything so that no ripples appear on the still surface of mind to jar awareness from this newness, and so in the absence of sensory stimuli associating with awareness arises a vision of physical location, though personal identity associated with awareness has not returned. A perfectly clear, sharp, still and unwavering vision, outside of time, to be observed in any aspect of detail, or complete as a whole. It is like gazing with the eyes though much steadier since there is no movement in the vision, no shifting of focus as with the eyes, and the vision does not morph as in a dream. The scene is of the immediate surroundings, though bathed with a different kind of light than what is customarily perceived through the senses, as if the light emanates from the vision itself rather than bouncing off the vision. After this, when you are again in the world and perceiving surroundings with mind interpretations of the five senses, the thought may occur … was that vision a reconstruction of memory made perfect due to unwavering still mind, or was that a direct perception of reality via mind in a way that bypasses the senses? Stay with the inquiry and permutations within an intellectual analysis of perceived reality as an inferential construct may follow.

The vision you're describing sounds like subjective imagery bleeding through into your objective awareness.

Still mind is one aspect. Insight is another.

Should your interest be piqued, Shinzen Young skillfully explains, and offers a conceptual order to explain the realizations of Parsons but with a bit more meat, as a touchstone to further your purpose of communicating experiences, here and now.

http://www.shinzen.org/Articles/artHow.htm

Parsons doesn't prescribe any practices, but his view of enlightenment as already here and therefore not being a goal is similar to Soto Zen.

Interesting is the concept of kensho. I was unaware of Buddhism having a concept of consciousness awakening or "initial enlightenment." Kensho is the awareness that you and the subjective self are one (the subjective seen as unchanging and absolute consciousness), without really knowing about subjective awareness, of course. I've been in samadhi (practicing shamatha) all the time, non-stop, since 2007, and I've realized just now that I was concentrating on the subjective all that time. This was before realizing it was me, or awakening.

[Pam Seeback]

divine focus: Seeking stops when the seeker "collapses" (or whatever). It's the seeker who seeks, not consciousness (the "absolute"). It could be boundless if there's no seeking, right?

You are not reasoning things through. How does the absolute reveal itself if it doesn’t seek (move) within itself? You’re separating the absolute from its thinking aspect, man, why? As for boundlessness, there is no such thing, or if there is, a conscious being cannot experience it. Even if were possible for a conscious being to experience boundlessness, who would want to? To see no contrast, to see nothing, to feeling nothing, to taste nothing, to reason nothing, sounds like absolute hell to me.

OK, you have a different definition of seeking. Parsons means seeking for enlightenment. It's like an itch you can't scratch; you just gotta have it and now, right away. Enlightenment for most people is not the idea of causality. They're not sure what it is, but it's the end of all problems, worry, etc.

Boundlessness is just the absence of a contracted sense of self in the centers of awareness. To be bound just means to have a sense of self tied to a body-mind. You still see, feel, taste, and reason upon liberation. Contrast, though, there may not be any of, depending on what you mean.

If you listen to the video link I provided, around 10:49, Parsons links seeking with with dreaming, not with wisdom's revelation/expansion. His words verbatim: "there is no purpose in anything, everything is completely without purpose, this has no meaning or purpose at all, the only thing that looks for purpose and meaning is me, me wants purpose and meaning, it lives in hope and dreams that things will be better, never seeing that this is already fulfilled."

What happened to Tony Parsons is what happens to a lot of "new age" gurus, he fell under the seductive spell of self as the dreamer in an already fulfilled world. A very popular (and for most an essential) notion that serves the valuable purpose of experiencing a a much needed rest from the burden of seeking. Until, of course, the second "dark night" arrives.

I agree that enlightenment for most people is not the idea of causality, it wasn't mine when my itch first made itself known and it certainly is not Tony Parsons. By contrast I am referring to the appearance of something (a condition or effect) that causes the spirit to move into reasoning/revelation (wisdom). Luckily there is no shortage of "somethings" to get spirit moving/seeking. Two examples would be a scream in the forest or the thought "eugenics".

For me, being bound has a deeper meaning than that of a sense of self being tied to a body-mind. For me, the darkness of spirit (what is hidden, ignorance) is existentially bound to the light of spirit (the hidden revealed, wisdom):

Question from the audience: "But then I can never ask a question, you can never tell me, we just sit and wait?"

Tony Parsons: "If you feel you must sit and wait, that's another doing. We can talk as much as we like, we can sit and wait, it's all the same thing. Nothing the seeker does brings him any nearer to that which is already free. Everything the seeker does is effectively a way to avoid freedom."

Tony has not yet discovered that ultimate enlightenment (to use your term) is not about freedom from seeking. Perhaps in his next "incarnation". The questioner however, if she stops buying tickets to Parsons' meetings or anyone's meetings for that matter and instead keeps on questioning the nature of ultimate reality just might wake up in this one.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The experience is one of losing all sense of self tied to a body-mind.

That's called a dissociative state. It's another of those self-protection schemes of the mind and not a solution to suffering. But for those who need such protection, after seeing glimpsing of the dark abyses of emptiness and the stunning nature of ones own suffering, the mind is wise enough to supply it. Only the strong and rare would dare to move forward from here.

I have not experienced any suffering like this. I must have very frail sensibilities if I need protection from not much suffering.

You have not experienced it because, perhaps, your quest was to stop that experience by protecting and insulating that what was suffering? This is done generally by the various forms of conscious and subconscious dissociation. It's perhaps for the better in those cases where ones mind and quest provides the protection and stops the thinking. Like Nietzsche said so well in that recent thread about "being clever": in these circumstances, in which "know thyself" would be the sure road to ruin, ... forgetting one's self, misunderstanding one's self, belittling one's self, narrowing one's self, and making one's self mediocre all amount to reason itself.

What if no one is there to cling or fortify or suppress? It does feel good, but so what? I've experienced a state of bliss for a period of two years straight, before enlightenment; before even awakening. It was nice, but not a big deal.

Big deal? Well, nothing is really when compared to something way bigger. Whatever those occurrences were which you refer to, if clinging to them still occurs, there's ignorance and suffering, not matter what or how you might "feel".

[divine focus]

OK, you have a different definition of seeking. Parsons means seeking for enlightenment. It's like an itch you can't scratch; you just gotta have it and now, right away. Enlightenment for most people is not the idea of causality. They're not sure what it is, but it's the end of all problems, worry, etc.

Boundlessness is just the absence of a contracted sense of self in the centers of awareness. To be bound just means to have a sense of self tied to a body-mind. You still see, feel, taste, and reason upon liberation. Contrast, though, there may not be any of, depending on what you mean.

If you listen to the video link I provided, around 10:49, Parsons links seeking with with dreaming, not with wisdom's revelation/expansion. His words verbatim: "there is no purpose in anything, everything is completely without purpose, this has no meaning or purpose at all, the only thing that looks for purpose and meaning is me, me wants purpose and meaning, it lives in hope and dreams that things will be better, never seeing that this is already fulfilled."

The only purpose is to experience.

Parsons doesn't mean seeking the way you mean it. He means doing things with the goal of enlightenment. It's a different definition. Words are just sounds put together; it doesn't matter.

What happened to Tony Parsons is what happens to a lot of "new age" gurus, he fell under the seductive spell of self as the dreamer in an already fulfilled world. A very popular (and for most an essential) notion that serves the valuable purpose of experiencing a a much needed rest from the burden of seeking. Until, of course, the second "dark night" arrives.

Second "dark night?" One's not enough? Why is an already fulfilled world so wrong? If there's a second dark night, there's no reason there won't be a third and a fourth. When is it enough? Suffering does end.

[divine focus]

I have not experienced any suffering like this. I must have very frail sensibilities if I need protection from not much suffering.

You have not experienced it because, perhaps, your quest was to stop that experience by protecting and insulating that what was suffering? This is done generally by the various forms of conscious and subconscious dissociation. It's perhaps for the better in those cases where ones mind and quest provides the protection and stops the thinking. Like Nietzsche said so well in that recent thread about "being clever": in these circumstances, in which "know thyself" would be the sure road to ruin, ... forgetting one's self, misunderstanding one's self, belittling one's self, narrowing one's self, and making one's self mediocre all amount to reason itself.

So was the Buddha dissociated? Was Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj? Are all the enlightened ones who've ever existed just shutting themselves off from suffering, not knowing that suffering is so necessary?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I have not experienced any suffering like this. I must have very frail sensibilities if I need protection from not much suffering.

You have not experienced it because, perhaps, your quest was to stop that experience by protecting and insulating that what was suffering? This is done generally by the various forms of conscious and subconscious dissociation. It's perhaps for the better in those cases where ones mind and quest provides the protection and stops the thinking.

So was the Buddha dissociated? Was Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj? Are all the enlightened ones who've ever existed just shutting themselves off from suffering, not knowing that suffering is so necessary?

Do you really need to believe so badly they were free from suffering? Or that they were in their right mind? Second hand tales and even those few who met them only saw a glimpses. One old member here (Sapius) said he visited Nisargadatta quite a few times. Found him to be quite angry and disrespectful when "mildly challenged about his realization". That might have been true or not but it would confirm the idea that also this great teacher was stuck on his own liberation.

There's a point when you need to become alone: other teachers might just as well be madmen and deceivers, or at least all still existing in their own subjectivity and of those who surround them. And yes, suffering is necessary just as much as birth and death are, that kind of life, that kind of existence. Attachment provides care, care provides actions and the need to become undone again. That's where we exist, being student or teacher.

[Pam Seeback]

df: The only purpose is to experience.

I agree, which is why man experiences and does not create.

Parsons doesn't mean seeking the way you mean it. He means doing things with the goal of enlightenment. It's a different definition. Words are just sounds put together; it doesn't matter.

Words may not matter when matter is not present, but here we are in the world of matter.

Second "dark night?" One's not enough? Why is an already fulfilled world so wrong?

It's not that an already fulfilled world is wrong, it is illogical. If the world is already fulfilled, why does it desire/seek (more) experience?

If there's a second dark night, there's no reason there won't be a third and a fourth. When is it enough? Suffering does end.

The second dark night refers to the dark night of the purification of spirit a la St. John of the Cross. I was using this reference to suggest that your belief that you have found the end of suffering in bliss is but the end of the first dark night, the purification of the senses. Ken Wilber coined what I believe to be a brilliant "sound byte" of the process of expansion: translation, transcendence, transformation. The translation part is suffering free because the spirit is familiar with the logic of its language, however, the moment it is pushed to transcend the familiar so it can be transformed into the higher or more expanded "level" of translation, it experiences the suffering of this pushing. Expansion is a birthing, and as the Buddha so wisely said, to be born is to suffer. Or as you put it, suffering is so necessary.

[divine focus]

Corrections:

The subjective is your "higher self," not essence itself. It is non-physical and the subject of your experience. Essence is really in charge, not the subjective.

Enlightenment and the whole spiritual line of development in terms of the 10 Oxherding Pictures is not about merging with the subjective. I can't say what it's about, since I'm not actually done. I'm only at the 8th picture. It just makes life better, but there are other kinds of development that do the same.

[divine focus]

If there's a second dark night, there's no reason there won't be a third and a fourth. When is it enough? Suffering does end.

The second dark night refers to the dark night of the purification of spirit a la St. John of the Cross. I was using this reference to suggest that your belief that you have found the end of suffering in bliss is but the end of the first dark night, the purification of the senses. Ken Wilber coined what I believe to be a brilliant "sound byte" of the process of expansion: translation, transcendence, transformation. The translation part is suffering free because the spirit is familiar with the logic of its language, however, the moment it is pushed to transcend the familiar so it can be transformed into the higher or more expanded "level" of translation, it experiences the suffering of this pushing. Expansion is a birthing, and as the Buddha so wisely said, to be born is to suffer. Or as you put it, suffering is so necessary.

Is the transformation or thereafter suffering free? I'm in a space where there is no suffering. I don't know about this process of expansion you described, but my quality of life is very good. Even in pain, the most excruciating back pain you can imagine, it's there and then it's gone. It's completely allowed, not sought or unnecessarily extended of course, and when it's gone there's is no torment in worrying about when it might come back in unavoidable movement. (Not in pain now, btw). It's safe to say, in consultation with my subjective, I am done with all pain and suffering.

[ardy]

What if no one is there to cling or fortify or suppress? It does feel good, but so what? I've experienced a state of bliss for a period of two years straight, before enlightenment; before even awakening. It was nice, but not a big deal.

There is no big deal in bliss as you state, I have been around people in a state of bliss but they were inadvertently self centred ego fighters. I used to refer to them as zenoid's.

To speak of this experience seems very convoluted for such a simple thing. Why is this so? Because what you experience is unformed silence and cannot be named or described.

Diebert speaks of silencing the mind) my experience is that you cannot silence the mind, it comes to quiescence by itself, as the battle against the life of the ego starts to move in your direction. Of course during your meditation you put thoughts to one side but they do not stop. At the pointy end of the search it takes a very brave person to step forward into the unknown to die and be born again.

I find it strange that many are claiming a complete breakthrough and seem able to go on a peaceful merry go round and good on them.

I ask the same question I asked when I first came back to this site. If you have experienced full enlightenment then do the normal thing and write a poem about the experience. So that we may all understand, without a 1st class honours in philosophy and psychology.