quote:
Originally posted by Tibetan_Ice
quote:
My next comment, aimed specifically at anyone who proclaims themselves to be fully awake, is a quote from B. Alan Wallace's "Mind in the Balance" :
The final nirvana of an arhat entails a nondual realization of the nonconceptual, primordial stillness of the absolute space of phenomenon. But it seems that such a being has not fully realized the perfect luminosity of omniscient, primordial consciousness or the creative potential of the energy of primordial consciousness. One who achieves the perfect spiritual awakening of a buddha, fully realizes all three aspects of the Great Perfection.
Something to think about and something to strive for...
![Smiley :)](http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/Smileys/akyhne/smiley.gif)
TI
Hi TI,
Good post; very helpful comparison on AYP techniques vs. Kriya techniques; thanks.
Per the quote above - I just read Embracing Mind by B. Alan Wallace; I highly recommend anything by him.
And I agree with that quote, by the way.
Different traditions have different terms, and what B. Alan Wallace calls an Arhat is one who has realized the clarity, as he says, of absolute space
of phenomenon, which still occurs within the space of consciousness.
In Shaivism, this would be someone who has realized the fullness of Shakti, but not of Shiva.
"Perfect luminosity of omniscient, primordial consciousness or the creative potential of the energy of primordial consciousness" refers to the union of Shivashakti - limitless subjectivity and limitless objectivity, living unbound as the wholeness now.
As far as "proclaiming" - yes, many, including myself have made the point that if there's one "claiming" or "proclaiming" enlightenment, especially with any sort of indication of a "separate me" who is enlightened, such statements are inherently untrue.
Yogani has also said in the
most recent lesson, posted today, that statements about enlightenment are inherently distracting.
Some of us here well know the truth of this.
![Smile [:)]](http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/Smileys/akyhne/icon_smile.gif)
And so, there's no proclaiming here; that's certainly never been the intent, as you and I have discussed at length in other threads.
My mention of enlightenment, or liberation, the knowing of true nature, is, and has been for one purpose alone:
To attest that it's possible for all of us; it's real, it's available.
That's all.
There's truly "no one here" to be concerned about levels or labels or attainment; that's all relative, and potentially-orienting (and hopefully not disorienting!
![Big Smile [:D]](http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/Smileys/akyhne/icon_smile_big.gif)
)
What I say along those lines is simply a counter-point to those who say "well, everything always keeps changing, and so nothing can ever be called 'enlightenment'."
At the levels of form, this is of course true; in our true nature, it is not true - because our true nature is changeless (beyond the "absolute space of phenomenon" mentioned above); change requires the changeless; what we actually are is the changeless --- ever-changing in experience. That's what experience is, and what it's for.
I didn't get the impression that anyone else was proclaiming anything, either, in this thread.
A direct questions was asked: "Anyone got the big E from AYP?"
This question has been answered in ways that seem very straightforward across the board, I would say.
Pretending there is no good answer to that question, or that no one can actually say whether they have the "Big E" or not, is simply the flip-side of one who runs around proclaiming "I'm enlightened and you're not."
The only unenlightenment is in the conceptual experience of the conceptual experiencer.
Enlightenment is simply actuality.
Enlightenment isn't an attainment; it's just an opening past all the conceptual obstructions to experiencing the actual as it actually is -- the very obstructions that effective practices help to remove from the memory of the body-mind concept, including the body-mind concept, itself (we may pragmatically "have" a body-mind, but are not that body-mind, alone).
And so, as Jed McKenna says:
"Enlightenment doesn't mean I have something you don't; it means you believe something I don't."I don't proclaim that "I" have anything that anyone else doesn't. I do proclaim that our true nature is called "true nature" for a reason: it's what we each and all actually ever are, now.
I used to not recognize my true nature, and now I do.
That's all I mean when I say "I'm enlightened" or "I'm liberated"; it's all anyone who has ever accurately made those statements has meant, including people such as Ramana Maharshi (who said "there is only the Self") and Nisargadatta Maharaj (who said "I am the Supreme, the source; the ultimate.")
None of us who say these things are saying that we're anything that anyone else is not. We're simply saying that we know what we are, by being what we are, and that everyone else can, too.
No sense of anyone else's experience matters, or can be accurate, prior to knowing ourselves; that's why knowing ourselves by being what we are, which has nothing to do with any ideas, teachings or concepts, which can only be somewhat-vague indicators, is so solely important.
My statements regarding enlightenment have nothing to do with "where I think I am" (short answer: I don't; actually - there's no I to do so, and no thinking about it).
My statements regarding enlightenment have to do with letting people know that of all the vast amounts of spiritual traditions and teachings out there, that some of us have spent a few years with AYP, and have experienced the complete results available via any spiritual practices - the knowing of our true nature, by being our true nature.
We're not "our true nature" any more than anyone else reading these words --- we just know it.
And anyone reading can know it, too.
Because we all are equally This - the Wholeness.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
![Smile [:)]](http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/Smileys/akyhne/icon_smile.gif)