Is Awakening a Process?

Posted by de

Today I was thinking about the question if awakening is a process or not. Awakening reveals timelessness, with no beginning and no end. And it reveals that this is what we are.

Some people sense this fact and others don’t. Some get frequently a taste of it in varying degrees of clarity, depending the degree of identification with a conceptual, separate entity. ‘Process’ is not applicable to the term ‘awakening’ itself, only to the reducing degrees of identification with a limited, apparently separate me.

If the identification drops suddenly, then the process is instant. In most cases, clarity and frequency of ‘no identification’ increases over apparent time until it is seen to be totally normal.

The ‘Now’ (Presence) and Meaning

Posted by de

‘Now’ cannot have meaning as Now as it is more fundamental than any thought construct. Any meaning is involves thought. However, the Now (Presence) as source of all is able to produce and attach meaning to what it projects as seemingly other than itself. Ultimately, all apparent meaning is dreamt by Now. One could say that from the perspective of the dreamt object there appears to be a meaning in realising this.

Meaning is the same as ‘what matters’.

I like the quote of Jordan Peterson “The world is not made of Matter, the world is made of ‘What-Matters’­. It contains a lot of truth. When strictly nothing matters at all, the worlds cease. Having said this, I see that there is the possibility that ‘what matters’ can have an optional, playful flair. To build a sand castle at the beach – does it matter to the children? It doesn’t matter to the extent where the children get worried about the next big wave. However, they may still give the castle some meaning within the scope of playfulness while it lasts, and they may even enjoy the drama of the wave eventually flattening everything.

Purnamidah Purnamidam

Posted by de

(in response to a statement about the possibility of being complacently ‘full with yourself’):

in Sanaskit they have a saying ‘Purnamadah Purnamidam,’ meaning ‘That (the absolute) is fullness and This (its expression – still the absolute but appearing as if relative) is fullness.” The assumption that here is lack – caused by a seemingly independent and frustrated mind – needs to be questioned. In my opinion, fullness (greatness) has nothing to do with particular actions. The recognition that the ocean appears as waves restores the sense of this ‘double’-fullness which is none other than Love, the love of being and living from being. The absolute is full of itself. You can’t be full with other than yourself as other doesn’t exist. Only if thought claims this fullness it becomes what you call ‘full of itself’ in a complacent way, thereby preventing further investigation into the actuality of purnamidah-purnamidam.

Rupert Spira: Contribution

Posted by de

Comment (Dietrich):
The beauty of what is being said is radically unconditional to the extent where it is being rejected by the conditioned mind. It is easy for the conditioned mind to relate to apparently pleasant events as divine expressions. The challenge for the unexamined, conditioned mind is that unpleasant events are divine expressions as well. Realising this activates pleasant events and reduces unpleasant events, whereas ignoring this (or resisting this invitation to realize this) activates more unpleasant events – all happening within the same, undivided life. It’s one of the rules, set by consciousness. To ‘contribute’ means to live from this realisation as it warrants both absence of lack and occurrence of more pleasantness. The focus is neither on ‘contributing’ nor on ‘pleasantness.’ The focus is simply on ‘what is happening’ rather than what should happen.