What is Enlightenment?

“Secondly, Amir has not said in this thread he is enlightened. However, ever since hes been on this forum he has made this claim.”

There is no need to ask others to refer to earlier posts. I will state it here on this thread. Yes, I have stated before that I have come to my awakening. And if I have come to my awakening, it is not because I am special or because I am somehow superior, it is simply because I have done the necessary work that is needed to come to know myself, through and through. It took me six years - of tremendeous effort from morning to evening even to have a glimpse into the true nature of mind, and at present my work is still not compelte. I am in the process of integration of awakening.

“He claims to be on same level of all masters of the past, including the Buddha.”

I am not interested in other masters, all that I know is myself.

“He claims all masters are lying at least…”

If you are going to quote what I have said, you should at least give accurate reports. I have never said that “all masters are lying”. I have said that sometimes, masters use useful lies in assisting others towards their awakening. In the yogic sciences it is known as upaya, which simply means skillful means. A thing need not necessarily be true in order to be useful. And I have given various examples of skillful means which masters have used, including different ways some masters have been trying to transmit their teachings. Gautama Buddha used to use the word Atman when speaking to Hindus, even those one central part of his teaching was just the opposite , the Anatman. Parahamsa Yogananda, before his death, declared that nobody is to succeed him as a teacher because it was not “Gods Will”. And as part of his attempt to transmit his teaching, he has tried to link Babaji, one of the figures in Kriya yoga, with Jesus Christ - claiming that they both work together to send out light into the world. This is again, just his own invention. Madame Blavatsky, who is considered awakened by several theosophists, invented the so called “Mahatmas”, which have been proven to be frauds, through several of her own colleagues who used to help her distribute the “Mahatma Letters”, which are letters that have been claimed to have been written through supernatural means, which transmit their teaching to Blavatsky. And I can give several more examples if you want of several people who have either been authentic masters or who have been passing themselves off as masters, who have been using useful lies in transmitting their teaching.

“He claims everything he says is the truth”

More attempts to deceive both yourself and others with your own dishonest and insincere tendencies. I have always said that the Truth cannot be organized, particularly through knowledge. So there is no question of what I am saying being true either, it is nothing more than a finger pointing to the moon.

“He claims he has reached enlightment, and now is in his post-enlightenment training.”

Yes, I am involved in post-enlightenment training. It is part of what has been called the Five Ranks of Zen, described by one Zen master Tozan. I am involved in the third phase, which involves balancing both the relative and the absolute within ones experience.

“He claims everything he does(walk, talk, eat) is better than others because he is awakened.”

With intentions to be deceptive as yours, I do not see how you can even consider yourself as interested in something like yoga. And it is my own understanding that you should avoid something like yoga altogether, it is only going to make you more egoistic and blinded by your own attachments. I have never said anything about things being better or worse, if you were being mindful while reading messages you would have understood what I was saying. I have said that the same actions done by one who is conscious are of a totally different quality than those which arise out of unconsciousness, just as there is no humbleness in bowing down, or any silence in sitting still. Actions have no quality in themselves, it is ones state of awareness which is flowing beneath the actions.

“He claims he can even steal if he wants despite being awakened and it would make no difference to the fact that he is awakened.”

As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to do such a thing. When I said that a Buddha can even steal and it makes no difference to his being, I was simply saying again, actions have no quality in themselves. There is one well known Zen master who used to steal. And he would steal useless things, like one shoe - or an apple from the marketplace. He used to get caught and be thrown into the jail again and again - so much that he even asked the police to keep him into the jail because he was just going to do the same thing again. His disciples were absolutely confused, how such a great Zen master could be stealing. Nearing the end of his life, the disciples couldnt help but ask him why he used to steal. He said that it was because he wanted to be thrown into the jail so that he could teach Zen there, to these people whom nobody has cared for, that these people are deserving just as much as being in possession of the method towards transformation as anybody else. And that is precisely what he had done - he turned the whole jail into a kind of monestery.

Yes, it is stealing. But his stealing is of a totally different nature than that of somebody who is stealing out of greed. So again, I want to make it clear - that actions have no quality in themselves, it is ones state of awareness which determines their quality. If still, you have trouble understanding this - then you are just seeing and remaining absolutely blind, hearing and yet remaining absolutely deaf.

“He only gives truths, because he is awakened. Everybody else is in ignorance/unconscious/asleep…”

Only somebody who is as blind as yourself would see somebody who is awakened as superior and somebody who is asleep as inferior. As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as superiority or inferiority, just different states of being with different causes and effects. If you are living out of unconsciousness - then the first step towards coming to more awareness is to recognize ones uncosnciousness. And the reailty is that only those who do the necessary work to come to an understanding of their own workings are capable of having any clarity of perception.

Surya,

“I am his fiercest critic on this forum. Such people should not be allowed to get away with making such claims”

Such people as yourself should not even be bothering with others. If you are at all interested in your own liberation - which I can see very clearly from the things that you have said as well as the general spirit behind them that you are not, then you should be far more involved in your own sadhana - pouring every particle of effort into the work of inquiring as deeply as possible into your own being. But - your interests are scattered everywhere else except upon yourself. You are not somebody whom I can call a disciple, nor a seeker of Truth. One is far more interested in all kinds of attention seeking projects, playing the same egoistic game that one has been playing for centuries. And it is good that you are at present not more involved in your sadhana, because disasters have happened when people such as yourself have made an attempt to use these methods as a way to nourish their own ego, which has only magnified their sufferings a thousand times fold. In such a case as yours, it can be safely said that unless you change your ways and awaken a sincere, authentic, and genuine desire to learn, out of recognition of your own ignorance, then there is no hope for you as far as your liberation is concerned in this life.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;57476]“Secondly, Amir has not said in this thread he is enlightened. However, ever since hes been on this forum he has made this claim.”

There is no need to ask others to refer to earlier posts. I will state it here on this thread. Yes, I have stated before that I have come to my awakening. And if I have come to my awakening, it is not because I am special or because I am somehow superior, it is simply because I have done the necessary work that is needed to come to know myself, through and through. It took me six years - of tremendeous effort from morning to evening even to have a glimpse into the true nature of mind, and at present my work is still not compelte. I am in the process of integration of awakening.[/quote]

You have claimed to have reached enlightenment. Now you claim you are in your “post-enlightenment” training to integrate your enlightenment. You have already started collecting disciples. But whenever I ask you how do you know you are enlightened, you say something vague like, “Six pebbles in a pond, wheels turn and mountains crumble”

We established what you really meant by this was that you can note what is happening around you, you are aware. However, merely being mindful is not enlightenment. I told you if mindfulness was enough then why would Patanjali and Buddha not leave it at yama and right action etc, why would they mention the higher practices of pranayama, meditation and dharana etc?

Like I said before Patanjali et al have already mapped out the stages towards enlightenment(samadhi) and before the final stage of enlightenment samyama becomes operational. This gives you full control and mastery over prakriti, you become god-like, you will be able to do many godly acts.

If you were enlightened you could teleport into my room right now, shake my hand, and teleport back. You cannot, because you are not enlightened.

If you are going to quote what I have said, you should at least give accurate reports. I have never said that “all masters are lying”. I have said that sometimes, masters use useful lies in assisting others towards their awakening. In the yogic sciences it is known as upaya, which simply means skillful means.

Telling a white lie is one thing, but you are claiming the entire teachings and life of these gurus are lies, and that is another thing. You are claming the vibudhi pada of Patanjali’s Yoga sutras where he describes all the siddhis based on different sayamas are lies. You are claiming the autobiography of a yogi where Yogananda describes all sorts of siddhis - as lies.

Do you know why you claim siddhis are lies? Because you don’t have any. The absence of siddhis falsifies your entire claim of enlightenment.

More attempts to deceive both yourself and others with your own dishonest and insincere tendencies. I have always said that the Truth cannot be organized, particularly through knowledge. So there is no question of what I am saying being true either, it is nothing more than a finger pointing to the moon.

You claim you have no opinions. You claim you make no assumptions. You claim whatever statements you make are facts. Come on Amir, don’t think were stupid, I just quoted what you said to Hubert and Dwai in this thread.

With intentions to be deceptive as yours, I do not see how you can even consider yourself as interested in something like yoga. And it is my own understanding that you should avoid something like yoga altogether, it is only going to make you more egoistic and blinded by your own attachments. I have never said anything about things being better or worse…

I already refuted your argument in the other thread by anticipating you were going to say you never say anything is better or worse. Who are you trying to fool me or you? You go around telling members on this forum they are asleep unconscious and blind. On the other hand, you tell us that you are awake, conscious and seeing. You may not use the words “better or worse” but you are effectively telling us we are less than you. You also recently told this forum that conscious people have a certain quality(certain = superior/higher/better) of talking, walking, eating - no doubt talking about yourself.

Whichever way you spin it, the subtext is saying loud and clear, “I am better than you”

Yes, it is stealing. But his stealing is of a totally different nature than that of somebody who is stealing out of greed. So again, I want to make it clear - that actions have no quality in themselves, it is ones state of awareness which determines their quality. If still, you have trouble understanding this - then you are just seeing and remaining absolutely blind, hearing and yet remaining absolutely deaf.

Nice try, but the context that you originally said your statement in was different to the Zen master you quoted. You first denied there was any morality at all, and then said that even if you steal, it is ok, because there is no such thing as morality and it will not affect your awakening. You are effectively telling people it is OK to steal and even awakened people can do it - if they want.

What else is it OK to do Amir? Murder, rape?

The word “en-light-en-ment” needs to be scrutinised

@High Wolf,

I, for one, disagree (that the word ? itself - needs to be scrutinized [analyzed]) ? an argument based solely upon semantics and/or linguistic theories is an argument based solely upon the form of a thing and not the idea(s) which give it life. At that, I might suggest a bit of reflection upon the word in which one tries to get to the idea(s) behind the form; what does it mean, semantics and linguistic theories aside?

the question is => why was “mind” or “spirit” de-lightened in the first place?

Nevertheless, this is a most pertinent question; ?why?, indeed!

First and foremost, a clarification of our terms: ?mind? and ?spirit? are, technically speaking, not interchangeable. Generally speaking, by ?mind? most people mean the inherently psychological element(s) of their existence, inclusive of: the wakened consciousness, the unconsciousness, the sub-consciousness, the super-consciousness, sensations, desires, fantasies, illusions, thoughts, fictions, (mental) systems, memories, visions, awareness and awareness of awareness. It is obvious then to the astute mind that this definition is ? far - from precise, because we already have another word that means all of these things: consciousness, the absolute second aspect of reality. Thus, what does ?mind? mean, if not consciousness you ask? In esoteric literature (esoteric means ?expert knowledge?, by the way), ?mind? is used solely in reference to the lower or concrete mental states of consciousness (47:7-4); it is the lower or concrete ?mind? that one is trying to calm in an attempt to contact the higher or abstract ?mind? which is representative of the world of causes ? or, seeing as he has been mentioned (Plato), the world of Idea(l)s or Platonic Forms.

?Spirit? is much more difficult to define, because it is very much like the word ?enlightenment?: it is a sign or symbol of something much greater than can, perchance, be contained in such a limiting form. This, alone, should reveal to the astute mind that ?mind? and ?spirit? are not synonymous, precisely because ?mind? is trivial to define ? it is a matter of matter, even. Esoterically speaking, ?spirit? ? as a symbol, then ? has a great many number of meanings, relative to context and individual understanding. At once, ?spirit? means motion - the absolute first aspect of reality, Shiva, father, active, fire, maleness, adeptness, the magician, sound, vibration, energy, force, purusha ? the list goes on and on.

The thing that needs to be grasped here is that ?mind? and ?spirit? are not synonymous, as much as they are connected; ?mind? is the active principle of the first self; is as the ?spirit? of the first self. Think on that.

Now ? the question…

?Mind? is the only thing that can be ?de-lighted? (as you called it), precisely because it is a thing. Why; why is the ?mind? without light, to begin with? This problem is a significant question in that it is not so easy to answer, High Wolf. That said, I?ll bite ? I?ll give it a whirl:

In terms of esoteric systems of thought, the first self or first triad (of physical, emotional and mental forms/consciousness/energies) is called the self of matter; in a sense, the matter aspect of reality dominates in relation to the first self. It seems to be a given that ?all is matter? to a first self, understand. The reasoning for this ultimately lies in the fact(s) of conscious evolution, from the unconsciousness of the first monad in/of primordial matter (or chaos) to the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of the cosmically evolved monad. In short: the cosmos is very much like a great machine, which has a single modus operandi ? the development of consciousness within/of the monads participating in/of the cosmos. Thus, the monad is always growing from unconsciousness to omniscience; is always proceeding from ?darkness unto the light? or from the aspect of the form to the idea(s) giving it life. The first self or first triad of the evolutionary monad represents this progression, par excellence.

I realize that I should stop here, for the time being ? there is a lot of material to be considered here, already. I also note my concentration waning for the time being.

Enjoy.


@Surya Deva,

Don’t worry - I haven’t forgotten about you. Patience.

On that point, might I suggest you begin a new thread concerning Amir’s enlightenment such that the quarrel can be removed from this thread; I think it only proper, given what the OP has had to say on the matter above.

Thanks for your time.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;57477]“He only gives truths, because he is awakened. Everybody else is in ignorance/unconscious/asleep…”

Only somebody who is as blind as yourself would see somebody who is awakened as superior and somebody who is asleep as inferior. As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as superiority or inferiority, just different states of being with different causes and effects.[/quote]

Like I said, whichever way you spin it, the subtext is the same :wink: Allow me to demonstrate:

I am … than you
What I say is a fact, because I am … than you
You are less … than me

You can use the words “more superior, better, more awakened/conscious/aware” interchangably. It still carries the same sense of underming another.

And the reailty is that only those who do the necessary work to come to an understanding of their own workings are capable of having any clarity of perception.

Like you right :wink: So you have clarity of perception. Others do not. Others are blind, unconscious and asleep - you are seeing, conscious and awake.

Hence why you tell people their opinions are not humble. You on the other hand do not have opinions. Every statement you make is a fact. Even the statements about things which you have no experience :wink:

I am done with you Amir. I think even one of low intellect will be able to see through you now.

Whichever way you spin it, the subtext is saying loud and clear, “I am better than you”

Isnt that what you also do time to time? :confused:

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;57479]
Nice try, but the context that you originally said your statement in was different to the Zen master you quoted. You first denied there was any morality at all, and then said that even if you steal, it is ok, because there is no such thing as morality and it will not affect your awakening. You are effectively telling people it is OK to steal and even awakened people can do it - if they want.

What else is it OK to do Amir? Murder, rape?[/QUOTE]

In Zen, the paradox component is always worked out. Zen masters don’t literally mean what they say. Stealing, in a Koan context, has nothing to do with the stealing as opposed to social morality. It is you, Surya, who take this literally and associate with morals. I can see that the way of Zen mysticism is against your scientific rationality. So, I understand that this is one of the major reasons why you clash with Amir. But my suggestion would be that you should engage his arguments without extending your interest. You should engage him like a you are having a pinpoint shot! No associations. Two arms on single point, not one thread from there, one thread from another place and so on… otherwise, you just become adversarial for the sake of enjoying being adversarial…

"But whenever I ask you how do you know you are enlightened, you say something vague like, “Six pebbles in a pond, wheels turn and mountains crumble”

We established what you really meant by this was that you can note what is happening around you, you are aware"

No, that is not what my responses meant. If you contemplate upon them, perhaps there is a possibility of understanding me. They are intentionally supposed to be vague, and for a specific reason.

I, for one, disagree (that the word ? itself - needs to be scrutinized [analyzed]) ? an argument based solely upon semantics and/or linguistic theories is an argument based solely upon the form of a thing and not the idea(s) which give it life. At that, I might suggest a bit of reflection upon the word in which one tries to get to the idea(s) behind the form; what does it mean, semantics and linguistic theories aside?

You have right to do so. This is only one interpretation, which could be useful to delve in enlightenment. As I said, this word is very multicontextual, and thus has become quite harmful in modern world. It is in a way “desacralized.” I thus a linguistic inquiry useful. For we often use language recklessly.

[QUOTE=occidentalyogi;57481]

Nevertheless, this is a most pertinent question; ?why?, indeed!

First and foremost, a clarification of our terms: ?mind? and ?spirit? are, technically speaking, not interchangeable. Generally speaking, by ?mind? most people mean the inherently psychological element(s) of their existence, inclusive of: the wakened consciousness, the unconsciousness, the sub-consciousness, the super-consciousness, sensations, desires, fantasies, illusions, thoughts, fictions, (mental) systems, memories, visions, awareness and awareness of awareness. It is obvious then to the astute mind that this definition is ? far - from precise, because we already have another word that means all of these things: consciousness, the absolute second aspect of reality. Thus, what does ?mind? mean, if not consciousness you ask? In esoteric literature (esoteric means ?expert knowledge?, by the way), ?mind? is used solely in reference to the lower or concrete mental states of consciousness (47:7-4); it is the lower or concrete ?mind? that one is trying to calm in an attempt to contact the higher or abstract ?mind? which is representative of the world of causes ? or, seeing as he has been mentioned (Plato), the world of Idea(l)s or Platonic Forms.

?Spirit? is much more difficult to define, because it is very much like the word ?enlightenment?: it is a sign or symbol of something much greater than can, perchance, be contained in such a limiting form. This, alone, should reveal to the astute mind that ?mind? and ?spirit? are not synonymous, precisely because ?mind? is trivial to define ? it is a matter of matter, even. Esoterically speaking, ?spirit? ? as a symbol, then ? has a great many number of meanings, relative to context and individual understanding. At once, ?spirit? means motion - the absolute first aspect of reality, Shiva, father, active, fire, maleness, adeptness, the magician, sound, vibration, energy, force, purusha ? the list goes on and on.

The thing that needs to be grasped here is that ?mind? and ?spirit? are not synonymous, as much as they are connected; ?mind? is the active principle of the first self; is as the ?spirit? of the first self. Think on that.

Now ? the question…

?Mind? is the only thing that can be ?de-lighted? (as you called it), precisely because it is a thing. Why; why is the ?mind? without light, to begin with? This problem is a significant question in that it is not so easy to answer, High Wolf. That said, I?ll bite ? I?ll give it a whirl:

In terms of esoteric systems of thought, the first self or first triad (of physical, emotional and mental forms/consciousness/energies) is called the self of matter; in a sense, the matter aspect of reality dominates in relation to the first self. It seems to be a given that ?all is matter? to a first self, understand. The reasoning for this ultimately lies in the fact(s) of conscious evolution, from the unconsciousness of the first monad in/of primordial matter (or chaos) to the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of the cosmically evolved monad. In short: the cosmos is very much like a great machine, which has a single modus operandi ? the development of consciousness within/of the monads participating in/of the cosmos. Thus, the monad is always growing from unconsciousness to omniscience; is always proceeding from ?darkness unto the light? or from the aspect of the form to the idea(s) giving it life. The first self or first triad of the evolutionary monad represents this progression, par excellence.
[/QUOTE]

I just wanna comment that this universe has weird laws. Progress through strife and happiness. What a weird concept!!? Why make an effort for such progress which belongs to future? You see, making an effort for becoming more conscious is rather an unnatural conditioning. And the quintessential question I pose is a foregone conclusion: It is a rhetoric, which has no logical answers.

Pain becomes your teacher. Pleasure makes you feel guilty…and so on and on. And then you reach out your self and become enlightened. My soul and spirit is against this rationale, and I think there is something wrong with the logic of allegedly enlightened people.

I posed the polemic if you remember, that is, what if Buddha was “high” by smoking weed? :smiley: And he was like that because he was tired of not-finding an answer for the “why” question? It sounds like a fine deduction to be made on a legendary personality such as Buddha.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;57484]
No, that is not what my responses meant. If you contemplate upon them, perhaps there is a possibility of understanding me. They are intentionally supposed to be vague, and for a specific reason.[/QUOTE]

Precisely. I know what you mean, as a person, who studied the nature of Koans. But its against the style of Surya’s scientific Hinduism. Thats why he clashes with you, as you clash with him ./.

"You can use the words “more superior, better, more awakened/conscious/aware” interchangably. It still carries the same sense of underming another. "

No, it does not. If somebody who has done work to become more conscious of himself simply says that he is more conscious than another who has not done any work at all, then it is not at all different than a short man saying to a tall man that he is shorter than himself, or that of a physicist saying that he has a better understanding of physics than somebody who knows nothing of physics. The scientist is not superior than another who does not know of science, it is just that because of his training and experience, he has a far better understanding of science. Similarly, just as a black belt martial artist may have a more thorough integration of his art than a while belt martial artist, that does not mean he is superior. He simply has more experience - anybody who is willing to go through the same effort, energy, and intensity can come to the same space. But - if you are an egoist, than you will be intimidated, argumentative, stubborn, and trying to find flaws everywhere with the master. And you will find flaws, there is no question about it. If you want you will find imperfections all over the place. That is simply the situation of being human. Such kinds of so called aspirants, in the yogic sciences we refer to them as mridu. Mridu aspirants are of those types which are characterized as unenthusiastic, fickle, rude, ill-mannered, unenergetic, and inflated with pride. When dealing with such disciples, if they can even be called disciples, it is the very function of the master to shatter his ego and put it in the right place. Because of this, his actions may outwardly appear harsh, unfair, and uncompassionate - but it is really out of great love towards a disciple who is destroying his own possibility of liberation because of the delusions that he has been infatuated with. And to cut down those delusions, it rarely ever happens by way of gentleness. If you are gentle with such a person, he will simply remain as he is, he is already determined to remain as he is. If you are really interested in encountering a master, then you should know that all formalities are to be left aside. The master may even strike you if he feels it is needed. This is not a joke. The matter of awakening is a very serious matter, it is not different than balancing yourself on a razors edge. Unless it becomes a matter of life and death for you, then you are not yet serious.

Thank you Yogimat,

I just want to confirm that High Wolf’s etymology is correct and the verb ment does indeed mean mind and comes from the Greek menes. Thus enlightenment literally does mean the brightening of the mind.

However, if we are talking about enlightenment in the context of yoga. First of all, we should not use this word at all, because it is ambigious and confusing. We should use the Sanskrit terms which are more precise and leave little room for ambiguity in the context: samadhi, atman jnana and moksha. These words mean sam + dhi, meaning perfect intelligence. Sam means to bring together perfectly the intelligence(the word Samskrit is based on the same root sam, meaning bringing together perfectly particles of words) or there a perfectly synchronized intelligence. A perfectly synchronized intelligence is perfectly clear, this is it is said that when one attains samadhi the mind becomes like a lake reflecting the moon clearly or a clear mirror reflecting the surroundings clearly, or a cleanr lens showing everything under it clearly. Perfect intelligence is also the same as cosmic intelligence. At samadhi, therefore ones intelligence merges into the cosmic intelligence underlying all of existence. Hence why samyama from sam + yama meaning perfect control becomes possible. As you are now tapping the cosmic intelligence you have access to every part of existence and to all the laws of nature. You can obtain any knowledge you want, you can do anything you want, manifest anything you want. Hence, why I say it is god-like. It is like being Q in Star Trek. You will become a godly being.

Atman jnana means the direct or realised knowledge of the vital essence or vital being within oneself. From the root atma which means essence/soul. This means that when you have directly realised the ultimate and core of your being, which not only is the core of your being but the the core of all existence. When you are the core of existence again you become a master of existence.

Moksha means the total liberation from the entire material universe and all its coverings. First you realise the prana body and then attain mastery over that. Then you realise the mental body and you attain mastery over that. Then you realise the intellectual body and attain total liberation over that. Then you attain the final spirit body and attain liberation over that. Then you have achieived total liberation. How do you test for this? If you have mastered the prana body you will be able to live without food and water, and be able to get prana from the akashic field. If you have mastered the mental body you will be able to at will leave your body and enter the mental plane and enter your body back at will.

All the stages on the way to the final goal are testable. There are clear marks of which stage you are at. Try not to let the charlatans pool the wool over your eyes.

High Wolf,

"Thats why he clashes with you, as you clash with him. "

: ) I do not have any clashes with him, or any kind of grudge or resentment. I love Surya Deva. He has a certain intensity which is rare, although it is my own feeling that such energy can be put to better use.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;57487] If you are really interested in encountering a master, then you should know that all formalities are to be left aside. The master may even strike you if he feels it is needed. This is not a joke. The matter of awakening is a very serious matter, it is not different than balancing yourself on a razors edge. [B]Unless it becomes a matter of life and death for you, then you are not yet serious[/B].[/QUOTE]

Seconded. Searching for the master is a serious issue. And it is all well-known that when the disciple becomes ready, master shall appears. And all that master is gonna do is to take you to the docks, where you could sail into the ocean, the “meant-to-be-trial” of one’s entire life.

In fact you even have to built your own boat, for master will not provide you with one. It is same as when you prey to Jesus, he will not give you the salvation. Hence the journey for enlightenment entails taking the fullest responsibility of one’s own. And the problem with the modern world, the answer to the question why “there are so few masters around” lies in this escape from responsiblity.

A true Master, in my opinion, makes the “Seeker” very responsible and honest to himself/herself.

Absolutely, I have no problem saying I am better or worse than somebody. However, this person is claiming to be better than everybody, including some masters. There is a difference.

In Zen, the paradox component is always worked out. Zen masters don’t literally mean what they say. Stealing, in a Koan context, has nothing to do with the stealing as opposed to social morality. It is you, Surya, who take this literally and associate with morals. I can see that the way of Zen mysticism is against your scientific rationality. So, I understand that this is one of the major reasons why you clash with Amir.

Read carefully, I said that the Zen story Amir cited was not problematic to me. Stealing for a good cause is no problem. What was problematic to me was how Amir claimed there was no morality at all, called it a limiting illusion/construct and then said that if he wanted to he could steal and he would still be awakened.

Read the subtext: If he wanted to he could steal. If he wanted to he could murder. If he wanted to he could rape. He says that has nothing to do with enlightenment. Enlightened people can also steal, rape and murder if they want.
This goes against the very enlightenment tradition of the dharmic world where the dharma of a sage are the qualities of compassion, love, wisdom, courage, paitence etc.

Moral training is the very foundation of Yoga and the 8-fold path of Buddhism. Thus for Amir to claim enlightened people can steal, rape and murder etc and it makes no difference is complete garbage, and it is disturbing that disciples are coming to him to learn this from this. If somebody claiming to be enlightened steals, rapes or murders, they are most definitely not enlightened.

suggestion would be that you should engage his arguments without extending your interest. You should engage him like a you are having a pinpoint shot! No associations. Two arms on single point, not one thread from there, one thread from another place and so on… otherwise, you just become adversarial for the sake of enjoying being adversarial…

That will not be necessary. I am bored of him now. I have done my dharma by exposing him here. Nothing more needs to be said :smiley:

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;57491]
Read carefully, I said that the Zen story Amir cited was not problematic to me. Stealing for a good cause is no problem. What was problematic to me was how Amir claimed there was no morality at all, called it a limiting illusion/construct and then said that if he wanted to he could steal and he would still be awakened.

Read the subtext: If he wanted to he could steal. If he wanted to he could murder. If he wanted to he could rape. He says that has nothing to do with enlightenment. Enlightened people can also steal, rape and murder if they want.

This goes against the very enlightenment tradition of the dharmic world where the dharma of a sage are the qualities of compassion, love, wisdom, courage, paitence etc.

Moral training is the very foundation of Yoga and the 8-fold path of Buddhism. Thus for Amir to claim enlightened people can steal, rape and murder etc and it makes no difference is complete garbage, and it is disturbing that disciples are coming to him to learn this from this. If somebody claiming to be enlightened steals, rapes or murders, they are most definitely not enlightened.
[/QUOTE]

I would question that. I dont think he necessarily meant that. He gave an example of Zen master who was stealing very trivial things to be some use for society’s most neglected folks. There is a morality in this stealing, which seems to develop on its own, with the action that is taken. Rather, a “spontaneously blooming morality” which nullifies the predominant moral construct inserted upon the “general” act of stealing.

The morality you mention is a socio-cultural construct. Again, I would question any structural training such as morality training. In my understanding, which relies on an embodied epistemology, morality cannot be taught but “invoked” through taken action. Morality grows on its own; it is supposed to be like that. And indeed, the more chaotic the society becomes, the more structure it necessitates. If there were indeed a lot of structures in the ancient Vedic tradition, this might entail that Vedic society must have been quite a chaotic community before the arrival of Yoga.

I think then it is better you ask him yourself. I am familiar with him and I know from the start he has maintained there is no morality. According to him an enlightened being can do whatever action they wish. Yep including stealing, raping and murder.

The morality you mention is a socio-cultural construct. Again, I would question any structural training such as morality training. In my understanding, which relies on an embodied epistemology, morality cannot be taught but “invoked” through taken action. Morality grows on its own; it is supposed to be like that. And indeed, the more chaotic the society becomes, the more structure it necessitates. If there were indeed a lot of structures in the ancient Vedic tradition, this might entail that Vedic society must have been quite a chaotic community before the arrival of Yoga.

Actually, structure was necessary according to the Mahabharata because of the arrival of Kaliyuga and the loss of the quality of faculties of people. Otherwise, in the past we were said to have a classless society. The Vedic social system varnashrama dharma system came much later.

The morality I am describing is not a social construct but is a natural morality that develops in all human beings when the mind is purified. Remember what Buddha said the reason he wanted to teach and not just get full and total liberation was because he felt compassion for people, compassion which was coming deeply from within. He promised that he will not pass through the final gates until he could help everybody else.

There are also scientific studies to show that those who practice meditation over a long time naturally develop qualtiies like equanimity, calmness, contentment etc If you think about it logically will make sense, the cause of actions like stealing, murder/violence, rape, war, gluttony etc can be traced to 5 major negative mental and emotional states: anger, lust, pride, jealousy, greed. If you murder somebody there will be anger present(even if you are a contract killer, the fact that you are one is because you are angry deep down) If you rape somebody there will be lust present. If you steal from somebody there will be greed present. If you gossip about somebody there will be jealousy present. If you lie about something there will be pride present.

When we develop our character by purifying the mind through Yoga practice these 5 major negative mental and emotional states diminish and are replaced by 5 major virtues: compassion, love, selflessness, charity, wisdom. Therefore it is impossible for somebody whose mind is pure to commit such henious acts like rape, murder and stealing because the causes for such actions are not present in their mind.

Can you imagine Buddha raping somebody? How easy is it to imagine? Does it feel right?

Surya,

“If you were enlightened you could teleport into my room right now, shake my hand, and teleport back. You cannot, because you are not enlightened”

Unless you have teleported yourself, and have verified it again and again several times through means of certain methods of testing, it should not be assumed that such a thing is possible. Yes, one may have heard many second hand reports about such things, but a second hand report is nothing more than a story which somebody tells you.

Even if I were able to do such a thing, be certain that I would neither speak about it, much less demonstrate them. People are ordinarily far more fascinated by such superficial tricks, and even more if they themselves have awakened such capabilities. Then it can be used as an excuse to feel better than others, superior than others - and seeing most people carry deep down in their unconscious a great desire for power, it can become very easy for such a desire to surface. And there is another aspect as well - that even if somebody demonstrates such things, it does not mean that he has become awakened. All that it means is that certain parts of his own consciousness, which have always been there but in a dormant state, have now become active. Because one went into a certain depth within yourself that you usually do not come into contact with, one has discovered something which one thought was never possible. That is all that it is, just a small discovery, an attainment. As you know, that is what the word siddhi means, an accomplishment. But you can go on collecting so many accomplishments, but that does not mean that one has become awakened. To develop such capabilities only requires enough training, just like developing a muscle. Any idiot can develop a muscle with enough repetition. The same is the case with the mind - with enough concentration, you can build the muscles of the mind and sharpen your concentrative power in a way where you can even gain control over your physical system in ways which ordinarily is not possible. But that does not mean you have come to any insight, or that you have seen directly into your true nature. On the contrary, the more siddhis you awaken is more and more dangerous the path can become, because if you have not yet come to a space where you can remain meditative, without becoming identified with these things, it can cause such damage that it may have been better to remain ignorant about these things completely.

Even if I were to demonstrate it to you - also because you do not have any trust, but great suspicion, you will just make up excuses - perhaps you were just hallucinating. I do not expect that all of a sudden, because of a simple trick, you are going to drop your suspicions and doubt. That is not in the nature of doubt. Unless something else awakens in you which brings a quality of surrender into ones experience, or some insight - then the doubt is going to remain.

High Wolf,

“The morality you mention is a socio-cultural construct.”

Yes, that is the distinction I was trying to make. It is this kind of morality which I have seen to be just a matter of the relative likes and dislikes of the mind in a certain time and place. For the Aztecs, to sacrifice fellow human beings was not a problem at all, it was seen as a great service for divine forces who would be pleased and respond in their favor. For the average person in the society we are familiar with - such a thing can only be sickening and disgusting. I do not consider this kind of “morality” to have any roots in reality.

So this is why, I do not even bother with the issue of morality - it is relative. But, there is something else which happens when a human being becomes integrated with nature, he naturally starts to develop certain qualities. Compassion, love, truthfulness, kindness, wisdom - not that it has anything to do with morality, it is just a side-effect of being in tune with nature. If one wants to call this “morality”, it is fine. But I prefer not to refer to it as morality because generally it is very difficult for people to handle the idea without bringing in their own likes, dislikes, attachments, and opinions about morality. That is what philosophers have been doing, they have created so many theories about morality which are just their own opinions and projections. So, while I do not see that there is anything which is “right” or “wrong”, at the same time there are certain states of being which awaken certain qualities which makes a person naturally compassionate. And compassion need not mean kindness in the ordinary sense of being gentle. It is simply doing whatever is necessary to assist another towards their freedom.

“What else is it OK to do Amir? Murder”

This too, has very little to do with the action itself. You murder other forms of life all the time just so that you can survive. The plants and animals are just as much a part of this existence as you are, but yet you gobble them up into your mouth and deprive them of living their full life span. In fact, that is how the whole food chain is surviving, everybody is swallowing everybody up. Murder in this sense, is needed for survival, but you never think when you are eating a meal that you are a murderer, because you assume that it is your right to have taken this beings life.

Also, sometimes killing can be out of compassion. When an animal or a human being is suffering slowly, and he is certain to die, you understand very well that to kill him in a single moment is far more compassionate than leaving him to die slowly in an agonizing torture. Or, sometimes you murder yourself for different reasons. In Japan, samurais used to kill themselves before they would be killed by their enemy, because it was considered honorable. They call it harakiri, very painful for a few moments. You are to draw the knife in a particular area, either a few inches below the navel, or sometimes perform three cuts from left to right. The method of cutting your belly from left to right had been considered the most honorable simply because it was the most painful - you have to stab the knife in the body, pull it out, stab it again, pull it out again, and perform the final stroke. It is a ritual kind of suicide. I do not consider suicide as something which is different than murder, you are murdering yourself. But in Japan amongst the samurais, there was nothing wrong with it. Even several yogis, in a far less violent way, commit suicide through Maha Samadhi, they consciously leave the body according to will. But their kind of suicide is very different than that suicide of a person who is just seeking an escape from reality.

So again, there is nothing right or wrong in killing, what determines its quality is not the action - but the quality of the mind beneath the action.