Da Was Truly Great

[GW in Ohio]

Dr. Nero: I applaud your self-proclaimed accomplishments with the Heart center, but I must confess that boastfulness in the context of spirituality has always made me somewhat uneasy. (Adi Da's bombastic, megalomaniacal pronouncements also filled me with unease.)

Nevertheless, I wish you well in your endeavors. May you find the higher consciousness.

I will take issue with your analogy comparing Adi Da to Babe Ruth. Perhaps it's my Catholic upbringing, but I can overlook womanizing, beer swilling and hot dog consumption in my sports heroes (I even think it adds to their allure), but I find it a bit off-putting when I hear that supposed spiritual leaders are smoking cigarettes and reefers, knocking back Jack Daniel's, and knocking up their female followers.

[Dr. Nero]

In my own defense, I didn't intend to mention anything about my spiritual experiences. But as soon as Random Stu started questioning my qualifications relative to the subject matter of the Heart, I had no choice but to defend myself by describing my Heart-related spiritual experiences.

[...oneLove]

In my own defense, I didn't intend to mention anything about my spiritual experiences. But as soon as Random Stu started questioning my qualifications relative to the subject matter of the Heart, I had no choice but to defend myself by describing my Heart-related spiritual experiences.

Personally I don't believe authentic "spiritual experiences" need to be defended or even explained, but since you brought them up, a few questions if you might indulge me a bit.

These "Heart-related spiritual experiences", do you feel they enable you to stand any closer to realizing the truth of who "you" (we) are than a common drunk on the street?

Will a full awakening to the enlightened state be any easier for you than for someone totally lacking in experiences of things spiritual?

Can you be confident that there's any possible preparation for the state of pure non-dual realization?

Enquiring people want to know.

...oneLove

[RandomStu]

In my own defense, I didn't intend to mention anything about my spiritual experiences. But as soon as Random Stu started questioning my qualifications relative to the subject matter of the Heart, I had no choice but to defend myself by describing my Heart-related spiritual experiences.

In your original post, you used the phrase: "(Heart)-enlightened." It's a phrase that has no commonly-accepted meaning. So my question was, first of all, about why you choose to use jargony speech like "(Heart)-enlightened," rather than plain English. Related to that is the question: what's the value of your making and holding this concept of "(Heart)-enlightened" (regardless of what meaning you're attaching to it)?

It's odd that you should describe this as "questioning your qualifications." It's more like I'm asking you to communicate with some clarity. Perhaps you're anxious to claim to have "qualifications" of some sort, and will use any excuse to proclaim them.

Or perhaps you got this idea that I was "questioning your qualifications" from my asking, "Where do you get these ideas of '(Heart)-enlightened'... are you claiming to have it yourself right now, are you claiming to have memories of it, or are you repeating ideas from a book?" This is a simple and straight-forward informational question; it's certainly relevent to know what you're basing your claims on.

In a subsequent posting, you wrote, "If I do Ramana's Self-enquiry and enquire to whom my thoughts arise, my attention regularly 'falls' into the Heart-root." So when you talk about "Heart," your claims are based on memories of past experiences, yes? After all, you talk about something that's happened "regulary" (in the past), rather than refering to your actual experience now.

"...'falls' into the Heart-root" is still opaque jargon that doesn't communicating any clear meaning. And regardless of what it means in your mind, the question remains about what value, if any, you find in holding this concept connected to your memories of past experience.

For instance... say I had a wonderful meal last year. That experience is long past. If I start talking about it, as if it has great importance, it's legitimate to ask what my intention is. I might have some good reason to go on about the memory of that meal. It requires some explanation, though, to communicate what that reason is.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Dr. Nero]

Stu, as I stated earlier, if you read Kashmir Shaivism and Vajrayana Buddhism, you will find plenty of descriptions of the Heart as (the One) Mind or (transcendental) Consciousness. In other words, to be Consciousness (the Self, or Buddha-nature) is to be the Heart. The Heart is a synonym for Consciousness, and these traditions refer to It as the Heart because you can only awaken to your Self-nature by opening the knot at the "place" where transcendental Consciousness intersects the human soul. And this place, as Ramana Maharshi says, is just to the right of the center of one's chest. The experience of the Self is Heart-felt; it is the unqualified Feeling of Being (Consciousness-Energy). And this experience correlates with the feeling of warm, blissful, radiant energy being emitted from this Heart-place.

Of course, short of permanent Sahaj Samadhi, all samadhis or spiritual states are just experiences. What value do these experiences have? You might as well ask what value anything has. You're like Ananda, who asked the Buddha the point of Nirvana. I don't know about you, but a major goal in my life has been to completely understand all the great spiritual Dharmas--and without experiencing and understanding higher states of consciousness, I'd never have been able to put it all together.

One Love, of course I feel I'm closer to spiritual En-lighten-ment, or Self-realization, than is a common drunk. I regularly experience the feeling of Being (Consciousness-Energy, or Cit-Ananda), but my body cannot handle the sheer Intensity of Being for long periods, and it shuts down by going into tetanic spasms, which shuts down the flow of Shakti.

Yes, it's easier for me, because I'm blessed with powerful natural Shaktipat. Also, I've been going through the Divinization process for over 30 years.

Preparation? No. It's just like an electric lamp. You turn it on (awareness), plug it in (oneness), and it let it flow ( effortlessness). It's simply creating enough pressure, or force, from your plugged-in presence to awaken and generate the flow of Power (Shakti, or Light-energy); and then you just remain empty, letting it flow. When the Shakti, cuts the Heart knot, then Siva and Shakti are forever one, and the Shakti become Hridaya-or Cit-Shakti. The three portals are presence, power, and poverty. In Christian terms, it's simply Holy Communion and receiving the Holy Spirit. It's not rocket science; it's simply Ohm's Law as applied to spirituality.

[RandomStu]

Stu, as I stated earlier, if you read Kashmir Shaivism and Vajrayana Buddhism, you will find plenty of descriptions of the Heart as (the One) Mind or (transcendental) Consciousness.

Right, there are plenty of people who can read books. Then they can repeat what they've read, and tell others they should read the same things.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with spreading ideas from books. I'm saying that personally, I'm not interested in that. Why would you point to a book to describe your own experience? I'd expect you to be in a better position to describe your own experience, than some long-dead anonymous Indian author.

I was asking instead: what can you say that comes directly from your own, just-now experience? I wasn't asking about ideas from books.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Dr. Nero]

Stu, I described MY spiritual experiences. But all it boils down to Sat-Chit-Ananada--Being Consciousness- Energy (or Bliss). This "experience" is that of simply consciously existing as a radiant, blissful intensity (or Existent) that literally outshines one's mental-emotional activity, which modifies and reduces (or contracts) this native Intensity from moment to moment.

I think Zen Buddhism is the most overrated spiritual tradition, and I think Christian mysticism is the most underrated one. Zen, unlike Vajrayana Buddhism, does not account for the Sambhogakaya, the Holy Spirit, Shaktipat. My experience is that the key to Enlightenment is simply connecting to, or communing with, the Divine Presence (or timesless Now) and allowing its Light-energy (the Power of Now) to en-lighten you.

When the descending Holy Spirit reaches the Sacred Heart-center, then you can spontaneously recognize your Self, or Buddha, or Christ-nature as the transcendental Source-Consciousness that is inseparable from this Shakti. Ramana's Self-enquiry accomplishes the same thing as Shaktipat: It sucks, or pulls down, the spiritual current into the Hridayam (Heart-center), where the Self, as Siva-Shakti, is recognized. That is MY experience.

Other than Da, what spiritual guru since Ramana Maharshi talks about this esoteric process of enlightenment?

I'm not a fan of the man Frank Jones. But I do appreciate his spiritual literature.

[RandomStu]

I think Zen Buddhism is the most overrated spiritual tradition, and I think Christian mysticism is the most underrated one.

To look into our own experience, it's absolutely unnecessary to carry concepts about this or that "spiritual tradition," or to create and hold judgements or comparisons of this vs that. We've got our experience, right now... we don't need to collect these concepts from "spiritual traditions" to see it for ourselves.

My experience is that the key to Enlightenment is simply connecting to, or communing with, the Divine Presence (or timesless Now) and allowing its Light-energy (the Power of Now) to en-lighten you.

You can perceive Now through the fog of all these concepts (like Enlightenment and Divine Presence and Light-energy etc etc), or you can put down all that thinking, all those ideas, and perceive what's already appeared. Anyone can try this at any time, and we can each decide for ourselves which way we like.

If your concepts of Enlightenment etc etc are helping your life, and making you happy, then OK, what more do you want?

Otherwise, if that's not enough, you might consider believing in your true self, rather than in all those ideas.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[...oneLove]

If your concepts of Enlightenment etc etc are helping your life, and making you happy, then OK, what more do you want?

Otherwise, if that's not enough, you might consider believing in your true self, rather than in all those ideas.

Yes, although concepts of enlightment are contained within the enlightened Self (not vice-versa), it is by no means limited to these concepts or conceptional experiences. Nor can enlightenment be obtained by the belief in these concepts; any more than thirst can be quenched by the concept of water. For those who are befooled by the notion that enlightenment can be conceptionalized and that they benefit from that notion, or have glimpses of enlightenment because they adhere to certain standards of belief based on that notion, these concepts become obstacles to discovering the true Self.

What good are any spiritual concepts, beliefs or even experiences if the one who holds such things as sacred is not realized as the Truth itself?

...oneLove

[David]

You see ya all that nothing is better than something."0" is the pointless point; therefore it is superior to any number.When your karma has been eradicated,there is nothing. It takes considerable wisdom to want to be nothing. So quit bombasting about about impermament experiences! David