March 12, 2012
No Expectations
In the way that I teach meditation, the idea is to simply to assume a position of freedom from the very beginning. You’re not trying to create any particular experience. Experiences may come and go, but you are not seeking for experiences. You are just assuming the position of unconditional freedom, without any expectations. You are not trying to make anything happen because you have realized that you are already free. Think about it: If there are no expectations, what else could you be but free? But if there are expectations, gross or subtle, you will be unable to let go. Consciously or unconsciously, you will be convinced that something is missing and that something more needs to happen. If you truly have no expectations, you can let go completely, and then you will always find that you are free right now.
|
Join Andrew's email list
Sign up here to receive a free excerpt from Evolutionary Enlightenment, an exclusive video, weekly quotes, and much more.
|
|
|
We hate spam just as much as you
|
Andrew Cohen is a spiritual teacher, cultural visionary, founder of EnlightenNext, and the author of 
Andrew,
What are your thoughts about the basic needs of the personality which includes creating expectations (goals) in order to fulfill them and feel satisfaction? For me, seeing through expectations is different than not having any. Are you suggesting that having no expectations arising is the way to freedom – or that relaxing and allowing them to arise and pass away, is all that needs to occur? As a behavioral change specialist, I’m not sure it’s possible to delete expectation from the human experience. It has its role to play. However, I do know that it’s possible to shift your relationship with them – and for me, that has been the path to freedom. Is this your perspective as well? Thanks for the clarification. Much love.
sorry Andrew, assuming a position of freedom is just another idea and it does come with expectations.
So true, so many subtle expectations in the air.
Many come from a sense of deficiency. Inadequacy. Comparison. Expectations based on how I imagine enlightenment to be, straining for it, longing, subtly rejecting
my present, limited experience.
Right now I am aware of how much my expectations are projected on my partner. How he is constantly disappointing me. How I try to influence him with my expectations.
I catch myself and stop, and before I know it, I am doing it again.
Being a passive agressive, my partner has a never-ending supply of disappointment for me. It’s a dance I would like to stop, but the pain of it makes me pay attention.
Perhaps there is nothing to do.
But one might say there are certain expectations that are right. For instance, I expect to be treated with respect. I expect not to be depersonalized. Would you call this self-centered?
How would an enlightened person dealt with this?
elizabeth- sounds like you need a psychologist not a guru.
I am afraid you are trying to create a particular experience, one of unconditonal freedom without any expectations. Andrew, if you don’t experience this as an experience, what do you experience it as?
Hi Andrew,
If you are transcending (or not identifying) with the object freedom, how do you know you are experiencing it?
Rohan, The words are “revelation” and “recognition”…the One Self has a revelation of Self-recognition, through, and as, us. We can also say that the Self has an “experience” of Its own Primordial Nature, an experience of Self-recognition.
There is a qualitative value with this experience that is undeniable; recognition of Oneness, can, and should, create a change in exclusive identification with gross-reflecting awareness, dis-embedding awareness as identified as “exterior” subject-object duality, and identifying more and more with “interior” subject-object duality, or subtle reflecting awareness, deeper than the gross-rational mind, directly disclosing psychic and subtle phenomenon, with the ultimate goal of total dissolution in the Causal Ground.
The meditative state is a temporary “snapshot” or “experence” (which hopefully allows recognition) of this entire process.
Your comment on “black and white of nonduality” is way off-base, Rohan. Those who deny “spiritual” dimensions shouldn’t be trying to speak about them. Your effort is noteworthy, though.
L.Nada
To be honest with you Nada I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to convey. Maybe if you repeat what you are trying to say in bullet points with some reference to the points I was making then we may be able to proceed.
Exterior/black
Interior/white
What is inbetween the exterior/black and the interior/white in your model?
Hi Rohan,
First, I’m not speaking from a “model”; I’m always speaking from the direct realization and Nondual condition.
Second; Nonduality is not black/white, interior/ exterior in duality, but black/white, interior/exterior in Transcendent Union. Only direct knowledge of Transcendent Union of all pairs of opposites is considered an actual Nondual perspective; all theorizing and philosophizing without direct Nondual attainment is partial and generally incorrect. In other words, if you haven’t *actually* made the arduous journey of surrendering your separation, transcending all the states and stages of the levels of consciousness, and resolving absolutely in the Causal Ground, then you’re talking from either an ego/gross or soul/subtle perspective, both of which are dual perspectives.
Everything that you say is spoken from the level of your exclusive identification; even if you’ve had, as you claim, “lots of spiritual experiences’, you have translated them from your ego-rational mind, which, strictly speaking is a dual perspective.
So both you and George are incorrect in your assumptions about “experiences.’
Sorry, “bullet points” are too corporate a method…couldn’t do it…
Surely you too are talking from the level of your exclusive identification with your experiences since WHO or WHAT is WILLING yourself into the various states or perspectives that you are experiencing. Are you suggesting that some force seperate from yourself is willing you into these states.
This is why I say your model since it is you yourself that is classifying your different sets of perspectives into a grid of exterior, interior and exterior/interior and then classifying these into broadly dual and non-dual perceptions. Each of these comprise of dual relationships whether it be exterior and interior, exterior and exterior/interior or interior and exterior/interior since each time you refer to a perspective you are at the same time always refering to another in order to provide some context. Even non-dual is meaningless without simultanously refering to dual. This is why I say your model largely comprises of black and white thinking, even if you choose to refer to them simultanously as is the case when you speak about non-dual.
The same applies when you make distinctions about your transcendent self, soul self and ego self even if you do choose to imply that your transcendent self is somehow seperate from your soul or egoic self. I am not saying that your model is illogical because it isn’t, all I am saying is this is how YOU have chosen to perceive REALITY.
In his respect, I was curious how your model distinguishes what is inbetween the exterior and the interior or does your model simply treat these as opposites without any overlap whatsoever?
In the same vein, how does your model distinguish what is inbetween the egoic self, the soul self and the transcendent self or again do they not overlap whatsoever?
Hello Rohan,
I’m going to apply a very useful metaphor, Integral Theory/Ken Wilber style, and I’d like you to keep this always at the forefront when you read Andrew’s (or my) comments and perhaps feel they hold nonsensical contradiction. Because you are such a smart guy, I think you’ll easily comprehend the meaning of these points, as “bullet-style” as I can get;
*THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY: Language, especially when we are talking “about” spiritual transformation, is a MAP ONLY. Language is a limit, and is paradoxical in its nature. Why? Language conveys “tense”, that is, past, present and future, whereas, when we are speaking “about” transcendence, we are talking about transcending time and space, creating union of the TIMELESS WITH TIME, the Absolute and relative, Emptiness and Form, etc. Transcendence of time is a TRANS-VERBAL affair; because the ego-rational mind is transcended, linguistics are TRANSCENDED, and you enter the realm of energetic form, archetypal symbol and image, which is then transcended with dissolution of all separation into the Causal Ground. THE ACTUAL TERRITORY IS NOT THE MAP.
As an example; If you take a trip to Australia, have “experiences” that were thrilling, beautiful, dangerous, relaxing, etc., come to me and convey your experience, am I then having the same experience, as if I were the one having the experience? You are drawing a map for me, and if I’m capable of relating, perhaps becoming emotionally or psychically sympathetic, I might be able to feel what you felt, but only partially…I am dual to your direct experience. And even as you are describing your experience to me, it is in the past-tense; “I went here, I did this, it made me feel this way”. It might still be very alive for you, but it was something that happened previously, and I’m basically divorced from your knowing. But if I had similar experience by going to Australia, doing the same things, I’ll have even more understanding of your experience, because we WALKED THE SAME OR VERY SIMILAR TERRITORY.
So when we are talking “about” Nonduality, it is not the same as BEING NONDUAL, and even the Nondual person is forced to deal with the limits of language. If you were in Andrew’s presence, you wouldn’t just be hearing his wise words, you would be energetically sympathetic ( I hope), and you would FEEL AS YOURSELF, in your body and awareness, that which he has Realized. Andrew, and I, have WALKED THE TERRITORY, lived the territory, made the territory part of our developed nature, and if you are humbly and fearlessly interested in what that means for you and all of humanity, when you are in our presence, you will energetically “taste” the territory of which we speak, which is the highest, clearest expression of Spirit, encompassing all expressions of Spirit, that is, as much as we have experienced and integrated as our self-knowledge.
*YOU MUST WALK THE TERRITORY: maps are very useful, but they are not the same as the territory. As radically Free as Andrew or I am, no matter how many “tastes” of Freedom you experience in our presence (if you’re capable), you still have to do the work of transcending your self-imposed limitations, fears and desires. Tasting Freedom, over and over again, as with meditation, helps with this process, helps with “walking the talk” or actually exploring the territory and getting beyond the ego-rational-linguistic mind, all the while including that mind in the process. Talking “about” the territory, creating a map, and walking the territory, DIRECTLY experiencing the mountains and valleys, rivers and oceans, are radically different things, just as talking about sex, and having sex, are QUALITATIVELY DISTINCTIVE; language is SYMBOL, experience is ACTUAL.
*TRANSCEND AND INCLUDE: now, you and I have talked about this before; try to remember that nothing is left behind except completely useless and irrelevant aspects of the personal self. The deep structures of BODY, MIND AND SOUL, are common to everyone who has ever lived or will ever live, since consciousness evolved, as far as I know. The ego-rational mind is a “body-mind”; generally speaking, the mind is a “subtle” capacity, but since the average mode of identification is gross-reflecting awareness, gross meaning material, the ego is identified with the gross-material world, taking care of, navigating and relating to, the physical world with the body. This is why I’ve stated that the ego is “body-bound.”
Though the ego and the soul are not-separate,but the soul is the deeper subtle capacity, and the ego must be differentiated from the soul in order for identification to become stable and constant. With identification as the soul we navigate, experience and integrate the subtle territory, what Buddhism calls the “in-between”. Here is the territory of subtle Deities, namely, Eros and Agape, the Ascending and Descending currents. So in my “model”, it is identification with the subtle soul, walking the territory of the in-between, that forms union of time and Timeless, Absolute and relative, Form and Emptiness. Why? Because the soul is the BRIDGE, the PATH, the WAY, to Nondual Realization. Buddhism calls the soul – “consciousness principle”. It is otherwise the animating principle, or “spark” of the Divine in us. By whatever name, it forms union between the gross, physical world and the Causal Ground because the soul is the capacity in/as us that simultaneously experiences all three realms; the gross, subtle and causal. But the soul, too, is DUAL; it/we must walk the entire territory of subtle reflection, enacting with, transcending, integrating and including, all that arises. Union with the God and Goddess, Eros and Agape, Wisdom and Compassion are essential. It’s reciprocal and sympathetic co-creation in STAGES OF UNION THAT TRANSCEND AND INCLUDE ALL THAT ARISES, until the soul accepts/surrenders and resolves into the Causal Ground, aka – Enlightenment! Nothing is forgotten, nothing is lost; not the ego-rational mind or subtle revelation; it is ALL- INCLUSIVE, ALL-EMBRACING, ALL-TRANSCENDING.
*My or Andrew’s “model”, then, is our TRANSLATION OR MAP of what we have directly experienced, united, transcended, integrated and included as our developed consciousness. We are talking “about” our passion for consciousness development as it affects the Whole, based in our direct experience, and translated for the benefit of others. And if you choose to develop yourself to the degree we have, you, too, will create a more adequate map for others to follow than if you never walked the territory.
I’ll end with a quote from one of Andrew’s books that I’ve just received in an attempt to answer your question “Are you suggesting that some force separate from yourself is willing you into these states?” I’ll premise by saying; No, we are not separate from Divine Will or Spirit’s intention, no longer temporary “states”, but Actual Realization:
From “An Unconditional Relationship to Life”, Andrew Cohen;
“Ever since the very beginning of my teaching career, people have responded to my message in extreme ways. I have always been passionate as a teacher, not due to any choice of my own. Compelled by a knowing that streams up from deep inside of me, I am often surprised as anyone else at how strongly I feel about the need to awaken.”
Streaming up from deep within is the One Self; not a separate “force” or reality, but the One True Reality realizable to anyone fearless enough to actually walk the territory…
If I missed anything, ask me again…and, please read Integral Theory, I guarantee you will be humbled and amazed…
Love and Light,
L. Nada
Thanks for that Nada and thanks for acknowledging at least that you are indeed using a model, since any interpretation of Reality requires a mental model of some form.
I can’t say that I am particularly endeared to the model youu, Andrewand Ken choose to share but I do indeed use models and apply them when I or another needs assistance. However, most of my models utilise sacred geometry of one form or another so it is not possible to relpicate them here.
My main concern with your response is the extent to which you assume a position of superiority regarding your degree of enlightenment which seems to largely revolve around your model of choice and your ability to use. you don’t at all come across as an enlightened being to me and nor does Andrew. Any enlightened being would have an abundant capacity to appreciate and accept that what we experience is for ourselves alone and whilst conveying our experiences to others might have some usefulness largely it is done in the spirit of sharing with one another rather than teaching for the sake of teaching. In this respect, this is why it is important to be able to own and convey ourselves without the need to project expectations upon others. To do so simply conveys our own insecurity with ourselves as egoic self, soul self and transcendent self. Not once were you able to own your experiences and communicate form the I but instead built into your response the expectatation that everyone should be like you, Andrew or Ken. This sort of wishful thinking is really an insecurity with individual difference which an enlightened being would rejoice since he/her would know that this person is both centred and ground in all states of consciousness whether egoic, soul or transcendent. You were unable to convey this rejoicung of individual difference and seldom does Andrew since most of his recent book for example is not a story about himself and his experiences but an expectation of what others could do. The point being that Freedom and Enlightenment is not achieved by trying and attaqching but by not trying and not attaching. However his book and your responses attempt to evoke attachment rather than non-attachment.
Thanks for answering what was inbetween the egoic and the soul and the soul and the transcendent. If I understand correctly it is the soul that is inbetween and in your model it is when the soul becomes disembodied that a person becomes enlghtened. If this is correct, I assume you are using an ‘ascension’ model then and that you associate enlightenment with the highest conceivable consciousness in which a person effectively merges with the Source of All Things or Causal Ground as you call it. Again if this is correct, can you tell me what you or Andrew are doing that is making a practical impact of say the living conditions of the poor in the world. Would you say your enlightenment has practical applications beyond the scope of making money for those in the innner circle of Andrew’s and Ken’s spiritual enterprise like hospitals for the poor or schools for the poor for example.
Rohan, there is a comment up above for you…please find it
If you transcend your identification with all the objects that arise in consciousness, including your mind, the passing of time, and the whole world, you will experience the freedom I’m describing.
Hi Andrew,
I don’t disagree that at the highest levels of consciousness we experience our basic state of freedom within the context of our existence but this is still an experience – as you yourself admit – therefore to realise this unconditional freedom we are still seeking and then finding a particular experience which in itself carries some amount of expectation albeit an expectation of non-identification.
I have found, Andrew, that what you advocate regarding expectations has become for me the “secret” of how to conduct my life successfully for the past ten years. Thank you for sharing your wisdom.
Namaste,
Mnimaka
Dear,Andrew Cohen, I agree with you 1000 times but it’s only for them who knows how the senses react with the material world, and the one who know that is the realised persom. Click to know more: http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/
The state we call realization is simply being oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realized, he is that which alone is, and which
alone has always been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of course, we loosely talk of Self-realization for want of a better term. That which is, is peace. All that we need do is to keep quiet. Peace is our real nature. We spoil it. What is required is that we cease to spoil it
haridas- very good- keep quite all you want and you will end up becoming a very quiet person.
All beings desire happiness always, happiness without a tinge of sorrow. At the same time everybody loves himself best. The cause for this love is only happiness. So, that happiness must lie in one self. Further, that happiness is daily experienced by everyone in sleep, when there is no mind. To
attain that natural happiness one must know oneself. For that, Self-Enquiry ‘Who am I?’ is the chief means.
We can free ourselves from expectations only if ” i dont have anybody and I am nobody to somebody” as long we live in a society and with a family, our responsibility towards others will create expectations which is the innate nature of human life. I guess what you are trying to say is detachment. The Bhagvad Gita says that you do your duties without expecting the fruit. When we detach from the results of our causes, we can experience freedom .
shobhana- who is it that frees themselves from expectations? who is it that creates expectations? who is it that detaches themselves from the results of causes? duality after duality …….
As the changeless observer we are indeed Everything and as ACIM state more than everyting is meaningless. So Andrews suggestion is we experience our absolute oneness. There is nothing else!
joseph- note my reply to nada
When you are free from expectations then what is it that attracts your attention? That gives you curiosity that you don’t change from 1 day or 1 hour to the next. You are free to take in and do anything.
Where does choice and free will come in when we have no expectations.
Thank you.
Jeff
Well from insight to insight–even coming to c
onclussions with insight they vanish—beingawareness Anyway many THANKS !!!!!
Since we are ALWAYS ALREADY FREE, meditation is the STATE in which, PRIOR to any experience or expectation, we ARE the Nonduality of our Primordial Nature; Already Liberated, Already Nondual.
As soon as we cease being in the meditative state, we are dual…we can feel that we’ve “had” an EXPERIENCE of Nonduality or Liberation.
In other words, as long as we are DUAL to our Primordial, Already Free Nature, meditation is a TEMPORARY EXPERIENCE, and perhaps we create ‘expectations’ of the next time we will be in the meditative state, but this is what potentially prevents us from the direct disclosure of our PURE SUBJECTIVITY.
It is the PARADOX, and the only way to undo the paradox is to transcend all duality, as in the meditative state. So to “assume the position of no expectation” of an experience of Nonduality, is to be FREE of the paradoxical subject/object duality, for it is DUALITY that creates experience.
She or He who is FREE does not “have experiences”, but is ALL EXPERIENCE AND UTTERLY TRANSCENDENT OF ALL EXPERIENCE.
The paradox is; you can’t rationally cognize the Paradox of Subject/Object DUALITY, it is a transrational disclosure, one of transcendence and Union and Oneness.
Enlightenment as the developed, PERMANENT CONDITION of Oneness, Nonduality, Liberation, Freedom IS NOT AN EXPERIENCE, and is ALL EXPERIENCE.
Ahimsa
nada- you cannot assume a position of no expectations or assume any position whatsoever to attain non-dual realization. It is the ego that makes the effort to assume and creates ideas and expectations that may give a relative sense of freedom . But that is not real truth. It is still whithin the dualistic constructs of the mind.
Are you sure, George, that “assuming a position of no expectations” is not an INTERIOR POSTURE that is a direct development because one is BECOMING through the STATES AND STAGES of the LEVELS of CONSCIOUSNESS?
Because if you’re SURE, then you are assuming a position this is, indeed, FULL OF EXPECTATION…
think about it…and don’t forget,
LANGUAGE IS A LIMIT, so while we are here to “talk about” spiritual development or BECOMING, which is TRANSVERBAL, language can only be exemplary applied after one has actually “become” liberated, and only then with paradoxical consequences.
It’s the beautiful burden of Awakening…one is obligated to speak the Unspeakable.
Nada
nada- thank you for your reply. You sure said a whole bunch and im not sure how to respond. Let me just say there is a real fallacy here…………Isn’t it obvious to you that trying to assume a position of no expectations is motivated by your expectations?—–After all there is a purpose in doing that.—– So you”re really creating expectations you did”nt even have to start with! ——As for the rest of your reply i”m not sure I really understand what you are talking about. Perhaps you can write a book. ….yours, george
Hello, george, and thank you for responding, also.
My point about language has become more obvious, evidenced by your last comment, as providing mental pretzels when it comes to the Nondual condition. One can not speak of Nonduality, yet all that is said is the expression of the always already Nondual Self. It is simultaneously “either/or/and/not”, so “no expectation” can be an interior posture that resonates and co-creates with/as the Nondual Self, just any of your “ideas” about it are also the Nondual Self. Let me attempt explanation:
Perhaps you’ve heard the verbal referent “Emptiness and Form are Not-two”, but One. Every Form is always already a Nondual Form, every expression already Empty, every burdened tear already Liberated of suffering, because the Nondual Self is simultaneously suffering and freedom from suffering, not/either/or/and All.
And the CAPACITY to KNOW that Emptiness and Form are Not-two, unfolds in developmental stages, hierarchical levels of ever-increasing embrace, ever-expanding freedom, simplicity and complexity in forms of Union. This is the purpose of the practices of Nondual Yoga. “Yoking” oneself in and as ever-increasing Nondual awareness that Emptiness and Form are Not-two. It’s the Paradox; Nirvana is Now, Effort is Necessary.
So having an interior posture, an ongoing relationship with Life, that is “already free with no expectations” is the “effort” one makes that “yokes” in reciprocity the Forms which we have identified with, to the Emptiness which is the Causal Ground. Forms provide the Way, as long as one is living fearlessly with “no expectation”, one must be willing to let go and embrace, let go and embrace, let go…
“No expectation” is a Form, yes, but a Form that helps condition the self-system to fearlessly receive and co-create; a Form that can be the “way” of greater humility and surrender. Since we, as human beings, have the capacity to co-create with and as the Divine, we are the vehicle of/as the Divine, then it is with Forms that the Divine embraces and expresses Itself in/as manifestation; we are the vehicles of Spirit’s ever-deepening awakening to Itself.
I hope I’ve clarified my perspective and why I concur with Andrew Cohen’s comment on “no expectation” , and yes, I am currently writing a book. It bears witness as a Nondual Yoga…
Thanks, Nada
I think the nature of Reality or the nature of Life is more subtle than simple balck and white thinking whereby black is dual and white is non-dual. As George points out, this is a duality in itself however much you try to subsume black into white. The same applies with the notion of no expectations, this in itself carries an expectation. The truth in my opinion is better expressed as a tautology rather than as a paradox whereby in the latter one contradiction is subsumed by the other whilst in the former the contradictions sits comfortably side by side although rather paradoxically. Thus rather than night only being day, day and night sit together, each with their own unreconcilable purpose.
I certainly agree everyone and everything is free which through meditation can be realised as a basic condition of our existence but don’t forget the context of our individual freedom, the context being the individual freedom of everthing and everyone else. Hence our thoughts, words and actions always carry consequences (or karma if you like). This is so because we are always in relation with another.
If non-dual describes an individual that is together, not split nor seperated nor suffering self-alienation, then this is as good as any way to describe someone who is truly an integrated enlightened individual.
Recently I had read an article by you in ‘speaking tree’ titled as ‘why moksha’ . In that you had mentioned about evolution and that let us flow with this without wanting anything. Now you are saying to sit in meditation without any expectation. so, evolution and freedom are these not contradictory? and the way you are describing freedom, is it not the same as ‘moksha’. please throw some light on this. regards.
hello again, Rohan,
If you have ever been compelled to read the writings of the sages and mystics, say, “The Threefold Lotus Sutra,” the culmination of the Buddha’s teachings, or “The Life Divine” by Aurobindo, or “Breakthrough; Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality”, for example, then I must counter your claim of “superiority” and egoic insecurity with this fact;
None of these teachers, nor any True Teacher of Spirit, has been focused on themselves, because they’ve TRANSCENDED THE PERSONAL and have realized themselves as the IMPERSONAL OR TRANSPERSONAL EXPRESSION OF SPIRIT. Their, my, Andrew’s OBLIGATION TO THE WORLD is to translate, as best we can, what we’ve Realized; it is demanded of us, because we have become the ONE SELF which resides equally in ALL.
No, the soul is not “disembodied”, but radically embodied, though “out-of-body” experiences may happen, and are a sign of stable identification with/as the soul. I’ve had many.
I forgot an important term often discussed on this site, which is the “intersubjective.” When you and anyone or in a group of many, temporarily transcend ego-identification via creative dialog, a sense of energetic lightness or bliss, a communion of our subtle selves, is possible, and this is a TRANS-PERSONAL AFFAIR, beyond the merely personal.
Walk the territory, Rohan. Then you’ll find out what complete and utter humility, strength and fearlessness is actually required.
The book I’m writing is partly a chronicle of my transformative experience, perhaps you’ll be compelled to read it when published.
You’re not the first, nor will you be the last, that make the claims that you have. And to answer your question about what we do to “help” the world, I say this; by doing what Spirit has requested of me, by being That Which can help to change consciousness, by my example and effort of living a moral, compassionate and wise life, by helping those who suffer with questions of meaning and purpose, I contribute to the world in the best way I can. And just so you know, I have been a “poor” person in this lifetime, I have volunteered at hospitals and given my last few dollars to many of the poor on the streets; I’ve invited drug addicts into my home to let them sleep and to feed them, I offer myself in service to the world every moment of every day. What do you do?
Light and Love,
L. Nada
Hello again, Rohan,
I can only offer generalizing snapshots, by no means exhausting the depths of meaning.
When the soul enters the Ground as a developed actuality, it is called “cessation.” There is no thought, memory or activity, yet all is already accomplished. This can’t be cognized, it must be directly realized.
I do find your comment interesting that you feel because I speak mostly from a transpersonal perspective, that you believe me to be both “insecure” and acting “superior”. I can only imagine the character assassination you’d apply if I actually began telling my personal stories and speaking about my mystical experience. My current assessment of you is that you couldn’t handle the truth of the mystical life, and that it would be almost irresistible to you to not denigrate. So I feel no urge to share the Beauty I’ve witnessed with you…
Yet, everything I’ve spoken of is an expression of that Beauty; if I keep it “impersonal” there is good reason. First; the “spiritual dimensions” are impersonal or transpersonal, so therefore, to develop into those dimensions is to agree that you are willing to go there. And while you’ve made it clear that this denies the individual in your mind, your assumption is incorrect. The individuality of a person is part of the vehicle of that development, but if Ultimate Wholeness is what Spirit IS, then that individuality must take on new meanings about itself in order to become that Wholeness. It’s just a fact, shown by any and all who’ve gone to the “yonder shore.” Not all things about you are allowed to pass into the higher realms of your potential. Things like arrogance and insecurity must be purified if one is interested in Ultimate Wholeness that serves the greater world. So by “my” agreement and choice to develop myself into those potentials, I’m agreeing to purify those things that serve the overall consciousness of the world, not just myself.
The way you conceive this development, by your own words, you think focusing on individual differences is what serves the world, but this is precisely the “big problem” with post-modernism; it says ” My perspective is the truth.” Well, ok, yes, but that is only a partial, personal truth, and while Spirit is indeed equally there, Spirit is simultaneously GREATER THAN THE PERSONAL AS ULTIMATE TRUTH. So the personal, which is partial, doesn’t serve the greater whole, because, again, it is just a fact, the strictly personal is closed loop, relative to its own needs. Your conception is backwards.
And on a personal note; I have volunteered in hospitals; I have served the poor and have been poor myself (but never without work);I have invited street people into my home to feed them, I have nursed drug addicts knowing they were going to continue with their habit; I’ve given my last few dollars to beggars in wheelchairs; I live every moment of every day in service to not just the suffering needy, but to those who have comfortable, well-fed lives, because the greater meaning and implication of evolution points to our Oneness, our Wholeness, no matter where or who we are on this planet.
Why do you have such a problem with confident, well-spoken exemplars? If we have no exemplars in this world willing to speak (and be living examples) from the transpersonal implications of their knowledge, we as a species won’t evolve into those potentials that Spirit is already available to become. You would deny that Greater Wholeness to suit your needs only?
I find your conception flawed, Rohan. Not because I’m insecure and need to find fault; on the contrary, I’d rather see you present something that actually makes sense to the greater good. Everyone being on the “same” level is not an option; equal dignity, equal opportunity, etc., are essential. But don’t condemn me because I’ve put effort into something that presents itself to serve that dignity and opportunity. You don’t have to agree; but be careful and thoughtful about how you label others “insecure”, lest you be labeled. Isn’t that one of the problems in the world? This undignified pointing of fingers? The mirror is always in front of you, reflecting back what you project…
Light and Love,
L. Nada
To change my perspective slightly, it is not so much that you are enlightened but that you are adamant that your experience of enlightenment and trancedence is the only valid one. You do not really directly realise my enlightenment and so attempt to invalidate it as post-modern something or other when in truth you do not understand my enlightenment only make judgements of it as you are accusing me of doing.
Whether you like it or not Nada, there are many types of enlightenemnt, many ways in which Spirit expresses itself through the trancendental self, not only yours. This is why you still have alot to learn my friend. Individual enlightenment is one thing, the enlightenment of society is another. Unfortunately you are not particularly helping the latter process since you are still attached or still immersed in gross reflecting awareness of your own transcendal experience. Respect that others are different to you and that thier transcendence is going to be of a different nature. When yo uhave achieved this you will then feel secure to share your experiences without fear of persecution.
Go well my friend.
Like you done loads of voluntary work, been the good samaritan and presently trying to do my bit localisiing food economies.