[NondualitySalon] Comments (Effort-noneffort)

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your response to Madhya's post and your insights Petros. I will

pass them on and post them on a as all these diverse

perspectives might have value for different people.

 

Harsha

 

 

 

Petros [xristos]

Monday, June 07, 1999 3:48 AM

NondualitySalon

Re: [NondualitySalon] Comments (Effort-noneffort)

 

"Petros" <xristos

 

> HarshaIMTM

> Forwarding from without my response. Comments welcome.

> "Madhya Nandi" <madhya

>

> On occasion, a well-intentioned Satsangher will post seeking wisdom

> regarding the nature of mystical/spiritual Realization. Often as not, the

> poster will be treated to a perspective which claims 'there's

> nothing to do!

> You're already there. Just accept that you are Enlightened, that you are

> 'liberated' and you will become That. Becoming That, you will

> see that you

> were There all the time."

 

A "well-intentioned" satsangher, like, oh, let's say Poonjaji . . . Ramana .

.. . Nisargadatta Maharaj . . . Ramesh Balsekar? Just misguided amateurs I

guess.

 

> Who does not wish to be told that absolute freedom, joy, bliss,

> etc., can be

> so easily attained?

>From my experience, a whole LOT of people! Try telling a friend or average

schlub in the street that "Thou Art God!" It never fails that I get massive

resistance from what I would think would be a stupendous complement to the

ego (if misunderstood), from people who are very painfully egoic already.

Maybe that's why they resist it. People would much rather hear what

miserable sinners they are. (That's why churches and A.A. are so

successful.)

 

> Perspectives making the above claims, while sincere,

> are misguided and in fact, may accomplish more harm than good.

>

> Recently, we enjoyed a brief flurry of exchanges regarding the question of

> 'turya' or the fourth state of consciousness. It was intimated by some

> posters that the question of a fourth state, or indeed, of any 'state' of

> consciousness, was essentially unimportant. All that one need do

> is realize

> that one is already there! Just accept that you are already there and

> you'll actually be there! There are no 'states' of consciousness, some

> posters claim, just look around you and accept "the fact" that you are not

> this and this and this, and you'll see your "true" self.

>

> Again, nothing could be more misguided and misinformed.

>

> Enlightenment cannot be experienced by mere 'negation.' Why? Because

> Enlightenment requires a complete transformation of consciousness. THE

> CHARACTER OF THIS 'COMPLETE TRANSFORMATION' OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS SUCH THAT

> THE AWAKENED PERSON RECOGNIZES THAT WHILE EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED, NOTHING

> HAS CHANGED.

 

This is true. But how does is it opposed to the above paragraphs? The

paradox is that "doing nothing" and "accepting" is extremely difficult for

most people. Making efforts is actually *easier* for people, because it is

what they are accustomed to all their lives. So actually, not making

efforts is the toughest effort of all . . . when someone just starts.

 

> What does this mean? Being 'Awake' is a substantively different

> experience

> of consciousness. The experience of time and space are completely

> transformed. The awakened person experiences, in the midst of the flow of

> temporal events, utter and complete timelessness.

 

It is impossible to experience timelessness or spacelessness when you have a

body and brain that operate in time and space. The brain is not designed to

experience anything else. Obviously, this impossibility cannot be the basis

of realization. For instance, I don't recall ever reading anything by

Ramana or Nisargadatta or Ramesh or Poonjaji that speaks of timelessness as

an experience or as the basis of realization. Almost all they ever speak of

(making allowances for their personal styles) is the loss of the sense of

the "doer" in the mind.

 

> This 'non-temporality'

> becomes part of the structure of experienced consciousness. Experiencing

> 'no-duration' means that in the structure of one's consciousness, there is

> the awareness that time does not move at all. The experience of duration

> includes a quality of recognizing that all the 'time' that one has every

> experienced has occurred in a single, motionless instant. One is able to

> bring to mind any memory, any image from one's past and recognize

> a quality

> of that experience that is EXACTLY the same--and realize that temporal

> experience includes both duration and non-duration.

 

Again, I have not heard of any known realizer expounding on this

"experience" as a central facet of awakening.

> This is not the content of ordinary consciousness. Non-awakened

> consciousness experiences only the flow of time and not the absolute

> awareness of non-duration.

 

But the question Ramana might ask is, "WHO experiences this nonduration?"

If there is still a sense of doership, that is not realization. There are

some psychedelic states that can imitate this sense of nonduration. But the

person comes back, with the sense of a separate doer intact. This is not

realization.

 

Obviously if time and space go, then the sense of a separate doer will go

too. But it is easier to get rid of the doer first rather than trying to get

rid of time and space experience (which you can't given the brains we have)

while ignoring the most insidious phenomenon of all, the doer.

 

> The awakened consciousness, however, experiences

> spatiality very differently. Every place where the awakened person stands

> is apprehended as being exactly the same location where one has

> always been

> throughout all of one's spatial experience. All locations, no matter how

> distant or foreign, are experienced as precisely the same place. A

> 'familiarity' inheres in the experience of spatiality. The nature of this

> 'familiarity' is the experience of never moving--of being always in one

> familiar place that is absolutely the same. Thus the awakened

> consciousness

> both comprehends the datum of being in another location--as always

> before--and, additionally recognizes a quality of spatiality that is

> 'non-spatial' or non-different, if you will.

 

I don't know if it is something that can be "experienced" as such, though it

may be understood or deduced logically. But this is not the be-all and

end-all of the path.

 

> The restructuring of awakened consciousness includes further

> characteristics. Because the enlightened consciousness perceives all

> time--past and future-- as exactly the same as the present, that

> consciousness behaves altogether differently from the person who

> experiences

> the flow of time.

 

A brain that perceived this way would not survive for long.

 

> Persons who experience life in the context of a linear, time and

> space-bound

> consciousness, form and define self-identity by forming attachments to all

> the events that occur within this context and behave by virtue of that

> experience. The awakened consciousness is not bound by a strictly linear

> and narrative spatio-temporal reference for events that occur. The

> awakened consciousness releases all attachments to past events

> and ceases to

> identify with these experiences.

 

That final sentence is right, and it is a lot simpler to transmit.

 

Anyway, there is no "awakened consciousness." There is *only* consciousness.

This itself is "realization" (though the word itself at this point has

dubious validity.)

 

> The reason this occurs is because the

> structure of ongoing awareness has transformed. When this happens,

> attachments naturally fall away. The 'emotion/feeling' based

> mechanism for

> behaving is exchanged and a new dynamicity for behaving arises.

> The nature

> of awakened behavior arises from a complete union with the

> present moment.

> Behavior changes from its former narrative-based performance to an

> increasingly immediate and spontaneous 'Moment' based behavior.

 

I don't understand what your purpose is in explaining all these

characteristics of what is supposed to be an awakened consciousness. It

almost seems like you *don't* want people to awaken. It's like you're

delineating a list of tickets to be punched in order for someone to get

their Certificate of Realization.

 

 

 

> An example: I am waiting tables. A customer criticizes me for being too

> slow and delivering a cold meal. A common reaction is to feel

> defensive or

> angry or resentful. The nonawakened personality will react to this

> situation by virtue of the accumulated tensions from previous

> experiences.

> He or she might internalize the tension, or lash out at the customer, or

> even choose to return kindness for injury. But no matter the

> behavior, the

> tension of experiences accumulates when the personality is under the sole

> dominion of the narrative, cumulative form of consciousness. The

> structural

> result of awakening consciousness is the experience of nondifferentiated

> time and space. The effect of this transformation of consciousness is the

> release of accumulated tensions. The awakened personality no longer

> experiences or behaves as before awakening. Rather, no matter the actual

> character of the awakened waiter's response, that response will arise and

> disappear instantly. This means that her actions in a given set of

> circumstances will not be conditioned or determined by a personality that

> behaves as a result of accumulated tensions or emotional attachments,

> prejudices and so forth. Neither will the behavior arrive from

> an experiene

> of consciousness determined by existential concerns determined by

> attachments to the narrative flow of time from the past and into

> the future.

 

A lot of complicated mumbo-jumbo. Simply put, the awakened mind's actions

will be colored (not determined) by the fact that that mind no longer

believes in a separate "doer." It will still be affected by environmental

and genetic conditioning. It may or may not perceive time and space

differently. It may or may not behave "differently" from a purportedly

nonawake mind -- since there is such a wide variation in behavior in *all*

minds.

 

 

------

Having difficulty getting "in synch" with list members?

 

Try ONElist's Shared Calendar to organize events, meetings and more!

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure, but I think the person whose comments I'm responding to is

Petros and a bit to Madhya, not Harsha. In any case, here goes:

 

Madhya writes:

>> Enlightenment cannot be experienced by mere 'negation.' Why? Because

>> Enlightenment requires a complete transformation of consciousness. THE

>> CHARACTER OF THIS 'COMPLETE TRANSFORMATION' OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS SUCH THAT

>> THE AWAKENED PERSON RECOGNIZES THAT WHILE EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED, NOTHING

>> HAS CHANGED.

>

Petros writes:

>This is true. But how does is it opposed to the above paragraphs? The

>paradox is that "doing nothing" and "accepting" is extremely difficult for

>most people. Making efforts is actually *easier* for people, because it is

>what they are accustomed to all their lives. So actually, not making

>efforts is the toughest effort of all . . . when someone just starts.

 

Non-doing is not something that one "does," and is not a kind of state

achieved by effort or lack of effort. So the non-doing teaching is not a

pescription, it's a phenomenal description of what is impersonally the case

RIGHT NOW. There are not some "ones" who do things, and there are not some

"ones" who do not do things. Also, there is no "one" for whom non-doing is

the case, and no "one" for whom non-doing is not the case. Not that this

is easy to understand. I have several friends who busy themselves with

doing nothing, thinking that it is the same as non-doing.

 

Madhya writes:

>> What does this mean? Being 'Awake' is a substantively different

>> experience

>> of consciousness. The experience of time and space are completely

>> transformed. The awakened person experiences, in the midst of the flow of

>> temporal events, utter and complete timelessness.

 

Petros writes:

>It is impossible to experience timelessness or spacelessness when you have a

>body and brain that operate in time and space. The brain is not designed to

>experience anything else. Obviously, this impossibility cannot be the basis

>of realization. For instance, I don't recall ever reading anything by

>Ramana or Nisargadatta or Ramesh or Poonjaji that speaks of timelessness as

>an experience or as the basis of realization. Almost all they ever speak of

>(making allowances for their personal styles) is the loss of the sense of

>the "doer" in the mind.

 

I agree with Petros that awakening is not a particular experience or kind

of experience. That would make it some kind of oceanic psychological

state, a state which came, and which can go. If the sages are right, then

everyone experiences timelessness even now, since temporal events arise

from timelessness, are sustained in timelessness, and fallback into

timelessness. They must therefore be identical with timelessness. This

makes "awakeness" not a psychological property of some entity, but rather

makes it the nature of all things even now.

 

But here's a question: are you sure that these teachers taught nothing

other than that awakening is the loss of doership? Put another way: as a

teaching tool, is lack of doership a SUFFICIENT description of what these

teachers speak of? In Western Psychology, the behaviorists have argued

that all thoughts and acts are nothing other than responses from

pre-existing stimuli. That too is lack of doer-ship. So does this make

B.F. Skinner enlightened?

 

Here's another thing about non-doership as a teaching tool. I have several

friends who have attended Satsangs in my city where non-doership is the

principal teaching. They take themselves as non-doers, so don't feel pride

or anguish or shame or other emotions related to doing. But they take

themselves as someone who RECEIVES the results of impersonally performed

actions. They complain thusly: "Well, no one did this, my dad died, and

I'm stuck with the pain!"

 

Regards,

 

Greg