Email Me Pointing to the Moon

Not Knowing

« Awareness, like love, is totally stripped of time | Main | Byron Katie: "it was all pulsing with life and delight, and it was all one unbroken experience." »

December 02, 2008




Lion Kimbro

I always appreciated Douglas Harding's way of pointing to the ultimate. If you have some time, please look up "The Headless Way."

When people understand (excuse me, "experience," because the absolute is not a concept or a frame of ideas,) they have two options: To talk about it, or to not to talk about it.

The dilemma is that if you talk about it, it's like, "Wow! You're enlightened? You made it through the quest that monks spend lifetimes working on? The summit of all religions?" (The social dynamic changes. One route is Guru-ism (whether calling it that or not) and book sales, the other route is less well explored and documented.) And if you don't talk about it, you contribute to the mystification as well, because: Who knows someone who's enlightened?

There are a few main points of consideration I have about enlightenment:

  • Can we reclaim use of the term "understanding?" (In preference to the highly mysticalized "enlightenment.")
  • And: What about the divine heart?

As for "understanding": Enlightenment is not a thought, it is not a particular idea, or a particular frame of ideas.

Or is it?

I've come to doubt the non-structuredness of enlightenment.

To be clear, I am talking about the observation of the sphere the universe plays in, the "single eye of God," the origin of light and sound, etc., etc.,. This is [a] classical enlightenment. Not a thought, not a memory, not a thing, not a feeling, etc., etc., etc.,. It merely "is," and it couldn't ever be anything else.

My hypothesis is that this is not just a truth, but also an understanding. 2+2 is always 4, but we don't always understand that. Understanding doesn't cause it to cease to be true, and it's not true because it's understood. Similarly, to me, especially when the realization is sudden and fierce, when people are more likely to get emotionally wrapped up in it, -- I think that betrays its nature as an understanding. Sudden realizations are usually fierce, rather than slow realizations or slow dawning, which people also do. There's usually a clincher moment, but it can be a small step or a sudden chink-chink-chink-chink-chink as the pieces all fall into place at once.

And all of this leads to believe: This actually is a built construction in the mind. That is, the term "understanding" is fair.

I have come to believe that one day, most everybody will be "enlightened." But the word "enlightened" is too strong, too emotional, too charged: I suspect it will be on the order of taking a class in school, and, "Oh, I learned about the nature of Consciousness and the Soul." A lot of people have no interest, and I don't know if it can be instilled, but there it is: it's a possibility I consider.

The second point is about the Heart.

In Eckankar, which is a frame I was gifted with to develop realization, they/we say that there are two steps: Self-Realization, and God-Realization. I compared cosmologies with a practicing monastic Vajrayana Yogi, and we correlated these steps as well. It is possible for someone to recognize "enlightenment" as I described above, and still not have located the cosmic Heart. In fact, many practices for enlightenment lead one against recognizing the heart. (Because the practice of removal of all things often times intentionally involves a removal of all desires, whatsoever.)

The cosmic heart is that heart which "emanates" (if you will) from the center of being, the universal locust of desire.

The problem is not so much desire itself, as it is the lower consuming the higher. This is where we get into judgment (a minor character in the saga of enlightenment itself,) and the ultimate judge: the Heart.

No matter how you judge this post, for example, it will ultimately be based in your heart. This is where form is reintroduced, because where Beingness, "as a persona," is isolated from form, a wholeness in the midst of the whirling carousel, the Heart has a very different character. It too is formless (like Beingness,) but it is pointed in the direction of form. It cares, it loves, it sacrifices, it generates, it desires, it discriminates -- towards what is often called "the Divine."

It is this second gate, variously called "God Realization" or "Co-creatorship" or "the Quest for the Divine" or "The Great Work" that I think is neglected (often times directed against) in the sagas that identify traditional enlightenment.

Personally, I've come to refer to what is traditionally understand by "enlightenment" as the "Silver Gate of Consciousness," and the realization of the divine Heart as the "Golden Gate of Consciousness." I like these terms. And there is no end: Recognizing the Golden Gate of Consciousness is just a recognition of the heart; To begin to discriminate the architectures of the Soul, and to strive to act on its natures, is a vast territory.

Jordan Flipsyde

When the love letter, do you still remember? The plot of the story is me!!!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30