Science is expression, knowledge is impression - Is enlightenment personal?

[Guest guest]

Namaste all;

 

As i was reading Advaita Bodha Deepika, one thought flashed across my mind.

Sometime ago it was discussed whether jnanis were perfect in scientific

knowledge or otherwise, and no consensual conclusion was drawn.

 

As of now, i am left with the impression that merging in the absolute pool of

potential energy, hence infinite knowledge, means omniscience. However, reaching

out to the apparent multiplicity, in order to express oneself, means actualizing

possibilities of speech, language and objective knowledge, and denying, if only

for the moments in which words are spoken, omniscience, since all possibility

converges in one string of words. This view also explains to some extent

Bhagavan Ramana's silent teachings (and makes me wish i could have taken part in

some...).

 

As regards the question of enlightenment being personal or otherwise, the same

logic applies (in my own personal view...). Turning inwards for real, and for

and from "the" real, means discarding all personality related concepts (which is

easily understandable as one of the major difficulties in sadhana), hence

approximating one's nature to that of infinite potential energy. This is the

weird, yet simple paradox of one's yearning to taste the sugar, but refusing to

become it.

 

As history has continuously shown us, the only true requirement for

enlightenment (if i may state such an unorthodox concept) is the very disposal

of personality. Vast examples of this can be found when one connects Near Death

Experiences to enlightenment, such as with Sankara himself. Accepting the moment

of death may simply mean accepting, with no possibility of turning back, the

dissolution of personality and individuality. In some instances, where time is

allowed to remain seeping thru the discarded personality (meaning no

actualization of the death), liberation in life entails. Having abandoned the

view of individuality, as death would presume, one merges with the infinite

ocean of possibility. Being again and again requested to relate to apparent

multiplicity, the illusion of individuality is mantained in those who do not see

from within (those in the 3rd person), even though moments of speech may only

mean borrowed drops from the ocean of possibility, ocean which the sage quickly

reverts back to after speech subsides.

 

The trick is how to embrace the extinction of individuality without being in the

jaws of a crocodile, and to not make an individual effort (which presumes a

distinct knower, knowledge and the known) out of this.

 

Finally, (in my own personal view) enlightenment is only personal if seen from a

3rd person perspective, which is a paradox, since truth obviously does not lie

in the realm of expression (if it did, indirect knowledge would suffice). Total

disregard for one's own personality is always associated with sages, and

although this question is of a paradoxical nature, i would risk saying that

being the extinction of a 3rd person in one's mind a pre-requisite, this

question to be self-destructive.

 

Enlightenment is personal since it is beyond the realm of expression. But it is

not personal since to be beyond the realm of expression means to be no

personality.

 

Is this a koan?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Felipe,

 

Very interesting thoughts (in my opinion). I agree wholly that

leaving behind personality and merging into the ocean of existence

is enlightenment. One has to give up all that one has and all that

one is in order to become infinite energy.

My Guru works as a hypnotherapist, physician, surgeon and energy-

healer. Sometimes I leave his presence as if enshrouded in a cloud

of ... I don´t know how to describe it but it is like my body was

made of air. The muscles relax, spinal column becomes straight and

there is great vitality. This usually lasts some 5-7 days.

The problem with me (and I think many others) is that we want to

taste the sugar but not become It. We want to have this infinite

energy of love and well-being but not be dissolved in It. The mind

cannot grasp this energy like it grasps books, pleasures and

philosophies. This is not an object for the mind to apprehend. Hence

enlightenment is so paradoxical, because it means to go beyond the

mind using the mind. How can that be accomplished? I have no idea.

pranams,

frederico