Enlightenment - A direct, succinct account of what occurs...

[Shadowman]

Hi Amor,

Thanks for sharing your views and beliefs, (even if perhaps posted mistakenly in this thread?).

In Lak'ech
tim

[Shadowman]

To those of us raised in Western Society, where "Science" is the new religion predominantly, and the focus is on outer objective phenomena, it can be difficult to dive directly into direct spiritual practices/sadhana where the focus is on the "inner" Centre/Source/Field of Awareness/Being which seems less tangible than the physical world. It can also be quite a challenge for many to quieten the active Western oriented mind using Vichara, at least initially.

A couple of articles which help clarify the difference between Dhyana (Meditation) and Vichara are linked below. Various aids and methods are mentioned for those who are unable to commence initially with a direct path. Also linked are a couple of books which simply and succinctly explain the path to awakening by those with direct realisation;

(Mods, should links to retail books not be permitted please advise and this post will be edited)

http://manonasa.blogspot.com/2012/05/self-inquiry.html

https://hridaya-yoga.com/hridaya-yog...to-meditation/

https://www.amazon.com.au/Seven-Step...s+to+Awakening

https://www.amazon.com.au/Manonasa-S...+Autobiography

In Lak'ech/With Love
tim

[Rich]

Hi tim, I was contemplating the back and forth of you and another bob and it puzzles me a bit, could it be that you both mean the same thing, except the definition of "enlightenment" is different?

For example here you mention:

As nothing separate can be expressed whilst fully absorbed in Reality, just enough of the relative self was engaged to communicate the awakening as clearly as possible, with the least “interference” from the relative mind.

And from another bob:

Posted by another bob (here)
Enlightenment is fully appreciating the fact that there is no such thing as enlightenment.

No human has ever been enlightened, nor are we here to "get enlightened".

We're here to learn how to do the right thing (imho).

Posted by another bob (here)
Over the years, I've seen many who have had some sort of "spiritual" experience, and immediately turn around and claim enlightenment. If they're fortunate, they'll find a real master with whom they can test their realization. Invariably, a few minutes face to face with such a master will serve to disabuse them of their new self-image, saving them years of wandering around in delusion. Those not so fortunate will end up believing their own propaganda, since the mind can easily co-opt even profound realizations, reveling in how enlightened it now is, and how it has transcended itself. Those are usually the hardest to reach, since they're convinced that their job is over.

The way I see it, as a human, the job is Never done, because we cannot have both Reality and Illusion at the same time, no human can have God consciousness but they can let go of the dream/human temporarily and see Reality.


From ACIM:


Attainment of the Real World

The world you see must be denied, for sight of it is costing you a different kind of vision. You cannot see both worlds, for each of them involves a different kind of seeing, and depends on what you cherish. The sight of one is possible because you have denied the other. Both are not true, yet either one will seem as real to you as the amount to which you hold it dear.

[Rich]

I remember listening to a Lester Levenson audio in which a student asked him if he was in that high state of Buddha, Christ....and he said something like: "No, or I couldn't be talking to you here, I sat in it for years" He also said that coming back was the most difficult thing, it took him many years.

[Shadowman]

Posted by EmEx (here)
Hi tim, I was contemplating the back and forth of you and another bob and it puzzles me a bit, could it be that you both mean the same thing, except the definition of "enlightenment" is different?

For example here you mention:

As nothing separate can be expressed whilst fully absorbed in Reality, just enough of the relative self was engaged to communicate the awakening as clearly as possible, with the least “interference” from the relative mind.

And from another bob:

Posted by another bob (here)
Enlightenment is fully appreciating the fact that there is no such thing as enlightenment.

No human has ever been enlightened, nor are we here to "get enlightened".

We're here to learn how to do the right thing (imho).

Posted by another bob (here)
Over the years, I've seen many who have had some sort of "spiritual" experience, and immediately turn around and claim enlightenment. If they're fortunate, they'll find a real master with whom they can test their realization. Invariably, a few minutes face to face with such a master will serve to disabuse them of their new self-image, saving them years of wandering around in delusion. Those not so fortunate will end up believing their own propaganda, since the mind can easily co-opt even profound realizations, reveling in how enlightened it now is, and how it has transcended itself. Those are usually the hardest to reach, since they're convinced that their job is over.

The way I see it, as a human, the job is Never done, because we cannot have both Reality and Illusion at the same time, no human can have God consciousness but they can let go of the dream/human temporarily and see Reality.


From ACIM:


Attainment of the Real World

The world you see must be denied, for sight of it is costing you a different kind of vision. You cannot see both worlds, for each of them involves a different kind of seeing, and depends on what you cherish. The sight of one is possible because you have denied the other. Both are not true, yet either one will seem as real to you as the amount to which you hold it dear.

Hi EmEx,

Using words to define reality is like trying to hit a distant target with bent arrows. When dealing with something as paradoxical as enlightenment misunderstandings and apparent contradictions are bound to occur for those approaching the subject intellectually. Which is why parables/metaphors/poetry/archetypes/mythology are used by "enlightened" or "awakened" Beings to transcend ordinary language, to indicate that which transcends the mind.

The main area of contention with bob was his assertion that there is no Self, with a capital S, (in the absolute sense) as well as no self in the relative sense, which was responded to here...

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post474681

If, as bob suggests, there is no self, who then does he propose is "here to learn how to do the right thing"?

There have been ongoing disputes over the centuries on the reported sayings of Buddha regarding Anatta or no-self. If you wish to pursue Jnana Yoga, ie the path of knowledge, an extensive investigation is required to approach Buddha's actual intent/meaning. In the end whatever conclusion you come to will only be helpful to the extent that it inspires you to find out the truth of the matter directly ie through PRACTICE of your chosen sadhana. A careful review of the following links/quotes will provide further insight, however to someone of your advanced preparatory status, your time would be better spent in practice. Like Bill Murrays character in the movie The Razor's Edge, sooner or later you have to let go (burn) the books (knowledge) on the "final stages of the ascent up the mountain".

Allow me to be blunt, my remarkable friend, it is not confusion, or curiosity, or lack of knowledge that is preventing you from taking the final steps, it is fear, not YOUR fear, but "your" ego's fear of extinction. Continued practice will reveal clearly that both the ego and it's fear are simply transient illusions ie the illusory snake projected by the power of the mind on the substrate of the rope;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta#Current_disputes

http://diamond-sutra.com/read-the-di...ra-chapter-14/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4...ddhadh%C4%81tu

Mark Blum speaks both of the fictitious discursive self and the real Self of the Buddha-nature. Commenting both on the non-Self and Emptiness teachings of the Nirvana Sutra, he states:

For the Nirvana Sutra, nonself is treated like another negative expression of truth, emptiness. That is, nonself is a very important doctrine to be expounded when the listener is attached to his or her notion of selfhood or personality, because it deconstructs that object of attachment, revealing its nature as a fantasy. Emptiness likewise performs the function of deconstructing attachments to notions of identity in things or ideas. But both are merely tools, or upaya (skillful means) and not final truths in and of themselves. Regarding emptiness, we find a strong assertion of the sacred nature of nonemptiness ... [and] although the discursive, evaluating self is fiction, there does exist a genuine self and that, according to the sutra, is precisely the buddha-nature.[30]

Further relevant quotes in the next post following on...

[Shadowman]

Q: I am trying to rejoin the personality back to the real self.

M: The personality (vyakti) is but a product of imagination. The self (vyakta) is the victim of
this imagination. It is the taking yourself to be what you are not that binds you. The person
cannot be said to exist on its own rights; it is the self that believes there is a person and is
conscious of being it. Beyond the self (vyakta) lies the unmanifested (avyakta), the
causeless cause of everything. Even to talk of re-uniting the person with the self is not
right, because there is no person, only a mental picture given a false reality by conviction.
Nothing was divided and there is nothing to unite.

*************

M: The true knowledge of the self is not a knowledge. It is not something that you find by
searching, by looking everywhere. It is not to be found in space or time. Knowledge is but a
memory, a pattern of thought, a mental habit. All these are motivated by pleasure, and
pain. It is because you are goaded by pleasure and pain that you are in search of
knowledge. Being oneself is completely beyond all motivation. You cannot be yourself for
some reason. You are yourself, and no reason is needed.

*************


M: To know that consciousness and its content are but reflections, changeful and transient,
is the focussing of the real. The refusal to see the snake in the rope is the necessary
condition for seeing the rope.

Q: Only necessary, or also sufficient?

M: One must also know that a rope exists and looks like a snake. Similarly, one must know
that the real exists and is of the nature of witness-consciousness. Of course it is beyond the
witness, but to enter it one must first realize the state of pure witnessing. The awareness of
conditions brings one to the unconditioned.

From "I am That" - Nisargadatta Maharaj

*************


When will the realization of the Self be gained?

When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed,
there will be realization of the Self which is the seer.

5. Will there not be realization of the Self even while the
world is there (taken as real)?

There will not be.

6. Why?

The seer and the object seen are like the rope and the
snake. Just as the knowledge of the rope which is the substrate
will not arise unless the false knowledge of the illusory
serpent goes, so the realization of the Self which is the
substrate will not be gained unless the belief that the world
is real is removed.

7. When will the world which is the object seen be removed?

When the mind, which is the cause of all cognition and of
all actions, becomes quiescent, the world will disappear.

From "The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi"



Let silence take you to the core of life - Rumi

Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation. ― Rumi

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by tim (here)
(Mods, should links to retail books not be permitted please advise and this post will be edited)

I hope links to retail books are permitted. I've been posting them for eight years.

[Rich]

Tim, I do not challenge your or anyone's definition of enlightenment, but it sounds like another bob, Jenci and Sebastion meant something different.

As Jac o' Keeffe mentions in this video, a totally self realized being never walked the earth.
Can't have both, the truth and illusion at the same time.
That doesn't mean we cannot achieve a relatively high state, even as a human.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6IXC6E8X7Zw

[Shadowman]

Hi Emex,

With respect, you take the stance that your ego is real.

This is apparent directly, as in your first statement above, where there is an “I” that does not challenge, and subtly in your expressed location, “in God”. Both imply a separate entity which exists. It’s existence, as quoted above in statements by Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj causes the false perception of a snake/world, which is in reality a rope/awareness.

Word Origin and History for exist

c.1600, from French exister (17c.), from Latin existere / exsistere "to step out, stand forth, emerge, appear; exist, be"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/exist

The misunderstandings referred to in the last post, and to claims of enlightenment or Self Realisation largely arise from mixing or conflating the relative nature of the world with the Absolute.

While it may be the case relatively that an individual referred to as Siddhartha Gautama lived on earth and attained buddhahood, It is also true that the Self never “awakened” or became “enlightened” or walked the Earth, in the ABSOLUTE sense…

"Subhuti, if a man should declare that the Tathagata is the one who comes, or goes, or sits, or lies, he does not understand the meaning of my teachings. Why? The Tathagata does not come from anywhere, and does not depart to anywhere; therefore he is called the Tathagata. – Diamond Sutra Ch29

Moreover the ABSOLUTE Self does not evolve, or have achievements, or manifest or even “exist” in the sense of separating or dividing itself into parts to experience itself from an extant viewpoint. It does not seek experiences, create leela’s or “re-enter the world” after awakening to verify it’s awakened state, lol. These are all convoluted attempts in consciousness/mind to make rational sense of what is in-explainable and beyond the mind.

EmEx, if you wish to REALISE the truth, apply Buddha’s statement below in investigating the self you currently believe can achieve “a relatively high state”


Then the Buddha inquired of Subhuti:

“What do you think Subhuti? Is it possible to recognize the Buddha by the 32 physical marks?”

Subhuti replied, “Yes, Most Honored One, the Buddha may thus be recognized.”

“Subhuti, if that were true then Chakravartin, the mythological king who also had the 32 marks, would be called a Buddha.”

Then Subhuti, realizing his error, said, “Most Honored One, now I realize that the Buddha cannot be recognized merely by his 32 physical marks of excellence.”

The Buddha then said:

“Should anyone, looking at an image or likeness of the Buddha, claim to know the Buddha and worship him, that person would be mistaken, not knowing the true Buddha.” - Diamond Sutra Ch26

It is true that you cannot have truth and illusion at the same time. It is the relative self which having seen a snake, awakens and realises that it was a rope all along. This shift however is also part of the illusion. The rope itself never did mistake itself for a snake. Only the “rope” IS, the snake never was.

As the illusion/mind of the “snake” weakens, as the clouds/thoughts slowly begin to clear in your practice, at a certain point it is REALISED only the rope is real, there is only ONE SKY and YOU ARE IT.

Drop any limiting beliefs, better still drop ALL beliefs and just sit quietly for as long as "your" mind will let you each day, lol. Observe all that arises and falls without identification, without judgement, with equanimity.

“Be still and know that I am God,” Psalm 46:10

http://www.thisisenergy.com/blog/78-article-12

Of course until your intention to know the truth earnestly overrides any and all earthly desires and fears, you will find an excuse not to practice. Questions and discussions are only useful to the extent that they motivate you to practice.

Eventually however, either wisdom or suffering will provide the impetus, the choice is yours…

Namaste/In Lak’ech/With Love
tim

[greybeard]

There is no one to claim enlightenment--there never was.
No, I, Me, and Mine.
No Subject nor Object.

With love
Chris

[Shadowman]

The cynics, and there are always cynics lol, may have observed an apparent hypocrisy in the last post where it was suggested that EmEx takes the stance that his ego is real due to the use of the term I, whereas while sharing from an awakened "perspective", my posts have also included the terms me or I. The difference is that one who is awake, uses these terms as a utility for communication with a dualistic language, while never "losing sight" of the truth that there are no actual separate entities.

It is for this reason also that much confusion arises, as an awakened teacher may respond in contradictory ways, according to the level of the listener. An awakened being also has no attachment/identification to any particular belief system/philosophy/etc. Which is why Buddha was reported to have responded to different listeners that God both does, and does not exist...

It is similiar in relation to a proclamation of enlightenment. When IT happens, you may exclaim out loud OMG ,lol, I AM GOD, but this is not a grandiose delusion of the ego, it is a statement of fact...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj

Lol Chris I was just about to hit post, when I had an inkling someone else had posted as this was being composed, and you had, on this very subject, not cynically, of course, but in your ever direct, kind manner,

With Love
tim

[johnf]

So considering the last several posts, I love the Jac Okeffe vid, and perhaps Tim's use of the exist definition
is a part of the discussion I think I grasp. My use of it is to understand the world as an arising, a happening.
Maybe a partial perception of the whole(meaning the world, or the separate self) . I mean I am not enlightened, I follow various people who talk about
such things, including this thread, and as long as I see a world, have fears, (at least exaggerated ones), I need to keep inquiring into what is appearing to me/within me. I guess the Course in Miracles would say that the world is for is atonement? Everything I have tried as a practice has been very rough, with some breakthroughs though.
It seems these bumps always came after a lapse of concentration.


When I was on this thread a while back, maybe years ago Tim's advice was to concentrate, and the frustrating thing is that I seem to have a strong disability in that respect, concentration rarely happens for me in spite of my
attempts to do so. I did an inquiry session with a facilitator yesterday, and we were working on coming down into the body and feeling emotions which I though was going fine until after we were done. A bit after the session I started having
extreme trouble reading, I felt like I was having a stroke or something, I couldn't string a sentence together, and through most of the night I had a very strong headache that didn't go away with some acetaminophen. I find the timing to be be
much more than a coincidence, because I have experienced symtoms of a milder sort at previous time after other spiritual
practices.

To bring all this to a question in line with the topic, I would like to ask about the phenomenon of spiritual bypassing.
I suspect that I am seeking spiritual experiences to escape hidden emotions, pieces of self or ego if you will, and that this

phenomenon is what my practice, the Living Inquiries is designed to do, concentration is aided by a facilitator, and with one one usually goes much deeper than a solo session.
Another example I really like is Stephen Harrison's request to some Indian guru to teach him the secrets of spiritual power, he offered the man a large sum of money for this teaching. As a response the purported sage replied, why is it you want power, what is it that you are afraid of. And that question resulted in Stephen naturally inquiry on a deeper and deeper level about "his" fear, I assume that led to a meeting with and letting go of the false self. His statement about the result of his "practice" was that he found reality to be a view without a viewer. When I read that sentence in one of his books a couple of decades ago I knew I wanted that.

I do seem at a loss though for finding this prerequisite of an ability to concentrate, I think that that is actually laid out by Ramana Marhashi at some point?



I hope that is clear Tim.


John

[Shadowman]

Hi John,

It depends on the context in which the word concentration is used. For beginners, or those who have difficulty with a wandering mind, initially it is suggested that they "concentrate" or focus their attention on a single thing, be it a mantra, their breath, the third eye, etc.

If you can point me to the post or pm in which I advised concentration, I may be able to elaborate further. If by saying you are at a loss to find this ability to concentrate, you mean you have trouble focusing the mind, this comes gradually with practice.

Once a degree of focus can be maintained, shift the attention to THAT awareness in which all phenomena arise ie to seek the Kingdom of God within/in your midst.

There are a number of references to concentration in books by or about Ramana Maharshi. I shall post a couple below from the Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi which will help clarify what was meant by the importance of context. If you would like copies of the pdf's (in which it is easy to search for specific words with Cntrl F) pm me. Otherwise you should be able to find them easily online for download;

The world of name and form is but an adjunct of Tat or
Brahman and, having no separate reality, is rejected as reality
and affirmed as nothing else but Brahman. The instruction of
the disciple by the Guru in the Mahavakya ‘Tat tvam asi’, which
declares the identity of the Self and the Supreme, is this Upadesa
(spiritual guidance). The disciple is then enjoined to remain in
the beatific state of Aham-Brahman, (I—the Absolute).

Nevertheless, the old tendencies of the mind sprout up thick
and strong and constitute an obstruction. These tendencies are
threefold and ego is their root. The ego flourishes in the
externalized and differentiating consciousness caused by the
forces of projection due to rajas, and veiling due to tamas.
To fix the mind firmly in the Heart until these forces are
destroyed and to awaken with unswerving, ceaseless vigilance
the true and cognate tendency which is characteristic of the
Atman and is expressed by sayings: ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (I am
Brahman), and ‘Brahmaivaham’ (Brahman alone am I) is
termed nidhidhyasana or Atmanusandhana, that is constancy
in the Self. This is otherwise called bhakti, yoga and dhyana.

Atmanusandhana has been compared to churning curds in
order to make butter, the mind being compared to the churn,
the heart to the curds, and the practice of concentration on the
Self to the process of churning. Just as butter is made by
churning the curds and fire by friction, so the natural and
changeless state of nirvikalpa samadhi is produced by
unswerving vigilant concentration on the Self, ceaseless like
the unbroken flow of oil. This readily and spontaneously yields
that direct, immediate, unobstructed, and universal perception
of Brahman, which is at once knowledge and experience and
which transcends time and space. p 210-211

Whatever thoughts arise as obstacles to one’s sadhana
(spiritual discipline), the mind should not be allowed to go in
their direction, but should be made to rest in one’s Self which
is the Atman; one should remain as witness to whatever
happens, adopting the attitude ‘Let whatever strange things
happen, happen; let us see!’ This should be one’s practice. In
other words, one should not identify oneself with appearances;
one should never relinquish one’s Self. This is the proper
means for destruction of the mind (manonasa) which is of
the nature of seeing the body as Self, and which is the cause
of all the aforesaid obstacles. This method which easily
destroys egoity deserves to be called devotion (bhakti),
meditation (dhyana), concentration (yoga), and knowledge
(jnana). Because God remains of the nature of the Self,
shining as ‘I’ in the Heart, because the scriptures declare
that thought itself is bondage, the best discipline is to stay
quiescent without ever forgetting Him (God, the Self), after
resolving in Him the mind which is of the form of the ‘I thought’,
no matter by what means. This is the conclusive
teaching of the scriptures. p 7

Similarly the sage who has inner and outer
senses controlled, in Solitude and equanimity, obtains
experience of the all-pervading Self through perpetual
concentration and thus, getting rid of all mental creations
caused by the darkness of ignorance, becomes actionless and
without attributes and remains eternally in the Bliss of
Brahman himself. p 249

16. Those who seek everlasting liberation need not
endeavour to practise repetition and countless verse mantras
(repeating potent scriptural words or texts to gain various
ends), and methods of yoga such as breath-control
(pranayama), breath retention (kumbhaka) and concentration. p 174-175

Notice in this last example that it is being conveyed that concentration on outer phenomena is being described as unecessary,

With Love
tim

[johnf]

Thanks Tim, that gives me plenty to work with, it seems there is a common theme of

whatever appears or is seen is Brahman, and i find that calming. And I could see spending some

time looking for the mention of concentration in various scriptures, I assume it is found in Buddhist
writings as well?



John

[Shadowman]

Yes John,

Steps 7 and 8, but more particularly the 8th step in the Noble Eightfold Path may be said to relate to concentration,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_..._Concentration

Shalom,
tim

[greybeard]

The challenge is that Ramana and others met the enquirer where they stood.
The Ultimate seems to me to be that nothing happened.
I cant find the Ramana quote but it is along the lines of "Neither creation nor disolution"
Such a statement is not helpful to most.
So the sages tended to give advice--pointers relevant to the enquirers capability to understand and benefit.

Eckhart Tolle, who tends to be "user friendly" said " There was never anyone there to hurt you" that will be helpful to some but not all.
What should work for all is the statement " Be still, be quiet"
However even that has pit falls ---its a mistake to look for a result--thats what ego does.

Chris

[Rich]

Thanks for that post tim, it was really interesting to contemplate.
I do not think my ego is real, an ego needs a story and a story needs time, but only eternity is real.

It is true that we can consider our self God in a way, because we are part of God, we are the same mind, but God being our Source and Creator S/He is bigger.

To quote from ACIM:

God has but one Son, knowing them all as One. Only God himself is more than they but they are not less than he is. Would you know what this means? If what you do to my brother you do to me, and if you do everything for yourself because we are part of you, everything we do belongs to you as well. Everyone God created is part of you and shares his glory with you. His glory belongs to him, but it is equally yours. You cannot, then, be less glorious than he is.

[Rich]

Tim you were right, there was some ego to let go off, the ego struggled for a while lol.
But your message was really helpful.

[Shadowman]

Hi Emex,

You’re most welcome.

To gain the highest benefit from this post a suggestion is offered. Set aside 20 minutes without interruptions, turn off the phone, and enter into silence for at least 10 minutes of meditation before continuing. Your mind will probably interject it has heard it all before, but if you still believe you are someplace on a planet called Earth, perhaps you have missed something of immense importance….

Context and definitions of particular words when discussing this subject can lead to unintentional misunderstandings when approaching the subject of awakening.

The definiton of “ego” applied in this thread essentially means the “I” thought in the mind, or the thinking self, also referred to as the relative self. It’s primary characteristic is that it appears to “exist” ie stand forth from and in separation from it’s environment and “others”. It does this via identification with an apparently separate, limited form ie the body/mind.

Without this “I” as a central identity, there could be no identification with outer perceived phenomena or identification with thoughts ie I am male/female, I am happy/sad, I am an atheist/agnostic, I am a Muslim/Christian/Buddhist, I am egoless, I am enlightened etc.

This is perhaps why the meaning of the word Satan is the adversary, or that which opposes, or stands forth from the whole. For there can be no opposition without separation, without duality, without subject (I) and object (world).

Notice also that “paradise” or unity, or communion with “God” was lost when “Adam” ate from the tree of knowledge, ie identified with the mind and the false limited “I am” rather than the true eternal unlimited “I AM” of Pure Being.

The point being, and this is only emphasised to help you assess your current position, is that with the loss of ego, or separate self, or separate doer, there is no longer any separation apparent. There is no “we” in the awakened state. There are no “parts” in the “whole”. Everyone and everything is Brahman/Self/Awareness/Being/Tathagata/God. It is identification with the mind and sensory input that creates the illusion. Which is why it has been repeatedly stated in this thread that using the mind and relative knowledge to “remove” the illusion of a separate self is a great error…

To seek “Mind” (Ed. Absolute Self) with the (discriminating) mind
is the greatest of all mistakes

https://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/FaithMind.php

The passage you quoted above from ACIM is simply a skillful means to coax those still caught in the web of illusion. You can see the resistance in this thread to the direct statements made concerning the absolute state ie Enlightenment is not possible for humans in a body, there is no Self, etc.

So awakened beings, rather than stating the absolute truth directly, offer suggestions and practices whereby seekers/students can gradually lessen their identification with the ego. This is done by encouraging, initially, actions and thinking which is in alignment with the truth that we are not separate beings ie acting selflessly, acting with compassion for all living things, treating others as you would like to be treated, etc. Is it not easier to believe that you are a part of God than that you are God?

Once a foundation has been established, the seeker can then be introduced to sadhanas or spiritual exercises which further weaken the hold of the illusory ego.

The purpose of this thread was to offer some clarification of awakening in as simple a way as possible, and to point out that the limitations being promoted on this planet, ie only a Son of God can realise “I and the father are ONE” or that you are all sinners, are patently false.

It is supremely ridiculous to say awakening is not possible as a human being or to suggest that the Self or God does not exist. These are simply beliefs largely promoted by those who would perpetuate your slavery, (echoed by the misguided and uninformed) for their own material or egoic benefit (thereby unknowingly sinking themselves deeper into illusion and suffering eventually).

It is like, metaphorically speaking, characters in the movie saying that the light which causes their appearance does not exist, or the wave saying the ocean doesn’t exist, or the clouds denying the sky. Or saying that a wave cannot "become" the ocean, lol.

You do not, and cannot, attain or evolve into THAT which you already ARE. It is simply a case of dissolving the illusion, which anyone, of any gender, of any age, of any professed belief system, of any level of intelligence, CAN realise, regardless of past errors or sins, providing they have a genuine heartfelt desire to do so.

As has already been indicated, it is not a question of if you will awaken, but when, and why. The best advice that can be given is that those whose intentions are motivated by Love and Wisdom, genuine Compassion for all beings, human, animal or otherwise, have already taken the first true “Giant leap for mankind” by aligning themselves with REALITY, with LOVE and with TRUTH, and will be the ones who suffer least in letting go of all that was just a dream,

With Love/In Lak’ech
tim

[Rich]

I did as you suggested.

I don't agree that we are God, at least not the God that is referred to in ACIM.
But we are one with God. Some awakened beings claim they are God, even Nisragadatta had the audacity to say he was above God...
he said something like; he is the root and god is the tree, so obviously he didn't mean THE God.
Perhaps it is not important whether someone believes in God or not, important is the desire for truth.

Posted by tim (here)
but if you still believe you are someplace on a planet called Earth, perhaps you have missed something of immense importance….

Yes, I understand this tim. I do not believe I am in a place, the concept of place is an idea in the mind. Where could you be, except where you have always been?

Here one of my favorite quotes from ACIM:

You are as God created you. There is no place where you can suffer, and no time that can bring change to your eternal state.
How can a world of time and place exist, if you remain as God created you?